rka

By: Emlyn Koster

As 2020 approached and with a whole-planet outlook, Emlyn expected a burst of ominous reflections around the 50^th commemoration of Earth Day but also with a hope for some ‘20/20’ given its symbolic meanings of clear hindsight and perfect vision. Instead, the world cascaded into multiple destabilizing developments. Two years later and with the museum sector having scarcely embarked on adaptive strategies other than increasing the diversity of boards, leaders and staff, he urges that museums learn more from their past to creatively maximize their value in a world deeply anxious about its future.

In her new Centering the Museum anthology, Elaine Gurian recalls our joint 2003 article that began: “Consider a world in which every museum, as either an extension of its mission or as its raison d’être, is geared to respond to contemporary events and issues” (see Joy Davis, Elaine Gurian and Emlyn Koster, 2003. Timeliness: a discussion for museums, Curator: The Museum Journal 46:4, 353-361). Imagining the future of museums has never been a more pressing need.

Context

In 2020 environmental and social activist Arundhati Roy surmised: “Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next”. And a recent New York Times Magazine cover story pointed out: “There are many examples of mass tragedies that inspired meaningful reforms of scientific breakthroughs―steps forward in human progress that, in the end, most likely saved more lives than the original tragedy claimed”.

Striking a different tone in the November/December 2021 issue of AAM’s Museum with A Redefining Moment theme, president Laura Lott began: “Distrust and skepticism in many of our country’s institutions is increasing, making the fragility of trust painfully clear”. More recently in a Leadership Matters column, Joan Baldwin exclaimed: “It’s no secret that the world of museum work is a mess, and it’s popular to blame it on COVID, but is that the whole answer?”. My response is an emphatic no.  

Hurdles

The museum sector has failed in my view to confront—and, in most cases, to barely discuss―what have been a growing number of hurdles to its progress. Foremost, it has been hampered by intellectual detachment from the issues of an increasingly tumultuous world as it continued to dwell on the past. Exacerbating this situation, the sector has segmented the interwoven realms of nature and culture into natural history, history, art and science/technology, each serviced by separate associations and granting bodies; art museums have come to dominate the popular sense of culture, but to their credit are portraying the Anthropocene more than other museum types (see Lotte Isager, Line Knudson and Ida Theilade, 2020. A new keyword in the museum: exhibiting the Anthropocene. Museum & Society 19:1, 88-107); scientific insights about global changes have, across many conservative quarters, fallen into disrepute; and curatorial research, like research across universities, has intensified its hyper-specialization while a need for transdisciplinary approaches has grown.

Perhaps most fundamentally, the museum sector should have remained alert to how its evolution was punctuated by urgings to tackle new and germane needs. For example, AAM’s 1942 Annual Meeting was challenged: “What part shall our historical museums play during the war? If they are to survive, they must justify their existence as a vital element of community and national life… Our institutions are not merely guardians of the past, but are factors in the building and molding of character for the future” (see L. Hubbard Shattuck, 1942. Wartime duties of historical museums. Museum News October: 6-8). As Marjorie Schwarzer later noted, the sector’s search for meaning often faded when the crisis passed: “When the funds began to flow again, museums quickly forgot the shock of the Depression as well as their moments of innovation on behalf of the public… An opportunity to be societal role models for the wisest possible use of resources and talent was lost” (see Marjorie Schwarzer, 2009. Bringing it to the people: lessons from the first Great Depression. Museum May–June: 49–54).

AAM’s 1992 Excellence and Equity manifesto posed a core question: “How can museums—as multidimensional, socially responsible institutions with a tremendous capacity for bringing knowledge to the public and enriching all facets of the human experience—help to nurture a humane citizenry equipped to make informed choices in a democracy and to address the challenges and opportunities of an increasingly global society?”. At the Smithsonian’s 150^th anniversary Museums for the New Millennium symposium in 1996, Harold Skramstad pointed out: “… the mission statement of most museums, which often states, ‘Our mission is to collect, preserve and interpret fill-in-the-blank’, will no longer do. Such mission statements do not answer the vital question, ‘So what?’” (see Miguel Bretos, Harold Skramstad and Irene Hirano, 1997. Changing public expectations of museums. In:  Museums in the New Millennium: A Symposium for the Museum Community, Center for Museum Studies Smithsonian Institution and the American Association of Museums, 33-50).

When discussing the success and failure of museums, emeritus scholar at the Smithsonian Stephen Weil stressed the distinction between outputs and outcomes, the latter defined as externally valuable productivity (see Stephen Weil, 2005. A success/failure matrix for museums. Museum News 84:1, 36-40). But in his last paper, he lamented: “… the awkward fact remains that for a variety of reasons, the museum field has never agreed—and until recently, has scarcely even sought to agree—on some standard by which the relative worthiness of its constituent member institutions might be measured” (see Stephen Weil, 2006. Beyond management: making museums matter, ICOM International Committee on Management Study Series 12: 4–8). In 2006 in AAM’s Museum News, I asked: “As news stories unfold and society seeks to understand the nature and significance of events, is the museum field going to adapt to a greater role in exploring the things that profoundly matter in the world?”. To illustrate external relevance, topic suggestions for each type of museum were offered, including the causes of divergence of people into rich and poor nations, rise and fall of superpowers across history and profiles of their leaders, causes of war and what constitutes victory and loss, and lessons from environmental stewardship efforts.

In many ways, the several states of mind across the sector which John Falk and I sensed in 2007 continue: “There are, first, a growing number of museums that wholeheartedly embrace the goal of external usefulness… at the opposite end of the spectrum, are museums—and we think these form a sizeable minority—that lack any tangible step into the dialogue about relevance… in the middle of the spectrum—and most likely the majority are museums struggling to know how to transform their consciousness in ways that matter more than at present“ (see Emlyn Koster and John Falk, 2007. Maximizing the external value of museums. Curator: The Museum Journal 50:2, 191-196). Robert Janes echoed this conclusion in 2009: “… the majority of museums, as social institutions, have largely eschewed on both moral and practical grounds, a broader commitment to the world in they operate”.

Institutional effectiveness with a focus on externally valuable impacts is central to the pursuit of relevance. For a museum “to reposition itself continuously to ensure its vitality” requires leadership with “a combination of grit and vision” (see Stephen Weil, 1997. Foreword. In: Robert Janes, Museums and the Paradox of Change: A Case Study in Urgent Adaptation. Glenbow Museum and the University of Calgary Press). Institutional effectiveness with a focus on externally valuable impacts is central to the pursuit of relevance. Because incorporating new contexts is a major part of institutional optimization work, among other reasons, I think the sector has long needed a prominence of many scholars well-grounded in experiential research.

Vagueness

The retiring director of the American Museum of Natural History in 1959 surmised: “… the natural history museum has reached a stage in the development of its relationship with society when the generally prevailing opportunistic vagueness of intentions is becoming a liability which must be replaced by a well-considered, well-integrated, and well-defined philosophy concerning the museum’s place in the general research and educational system of the nation” (see Albert Parr, 1959. Mostly about Museums. American Museum of Natural History). In 2000 an emeritus museum director and evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas discussed: “Can natural history museums capture the future?”. Positioning these institutions as “sentinel observatories of life on Earth” and therefore as “stewards of the future”, their concerns were framed around the interrelated challenges of the biodiversity crisis and the dilemmas of education in academia, public programs, and leadership. These stances became underscored by the declaration at a 2012 convening at the National Museum of Natural History: it began “Humanity is embedded in nature and we are at a critical moment in the continuity of time” (see Bill Watson and Elizabeth Werb, 2013. One hundred strong: a colloquium on transforming natural history museums in the twenty-first century. Curator: The Museum Journal 56(2): 255-265).

The 2015 report of the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on Planetary Health showed that “the health of humanity is intrinsically linked to the health of the environment, but by its actions humanity now threatens to destabilize the Earth’s key life-support systems”. Also warranting attention is the research area known as multispecies ethnography which is about non-human species whose lives and deaths are linked to us. Our needed big-picture outlook is further hampered by the fact that Earth history stops before Homo sapiens evolved in the vast majority of natural history and natural science museums. An actual or fake mummy is often the extent of coverage of human development as opposed to overviews of anthropological research into rituals, languages, religions, shelter, clothing, agriculture, aquaculture, communities, governments, exploration, trade, conflicts, the frontiers of technology, and environmental disruption. No wonder that nature and culture are silos in the conscience of most people!

In these contexts, it is noteworthy that a review of the 2014 book Life on Display pointed out that it “ends in 2005, when both natural history museums and science centers are seen as trusted, articulate voices grappling with new and evolving challenges” (see Mary Ellen Munley, 2010. Review of ‘The Social Work of Museums’ by Lois Silverman. Museum Management and Curatorship 25:3, 337-339). Perhaps the majority of museums think they are factors in environmental stewardship and caring communities, but are they really? Around matters of trust, the onus is on the museum to be proactively fulsome, not assume that audiences infer all that is involved. AAM’s 2021 Museums and Trust report concluded: “To be both trusted and influential, museums, like scientists, need to be skilled communicators, and study the most effective ways to talk about their work, and present their messages.”

Broadly, if museums are to achieve external relevance—a term discussed in my last RK&A blog―they must distill new visions, missions and strategies, rethink collections, optimize curatorial and interpretative work, and repurpose exhibition spaces. This stance is propelled by the premise that museums are a unique type of scholarly and public resource with an accountability to tap their much greater potential to be enlightening in a world increasingly anxious about its future. Earlier this year in AAM’s Exhibition journal, I proposed a menu of content topics with a whole-Earth context. The business concept of unique value propositions, which John Falk and I explained 15 years ago (see Emlyn Koster and John Falk, 2007. Maximizing the external value of museums. Curator: The Museum Journal 50:2, 191-196), offers a powerful approach to audience engagement. The immense challenges of the 21^st century depend on museums not shying away from the things we wish were less real world.

Prognosis

Over the past decade there have been forecasts of the increased value of museums, rather optimistically as things have turned out. From Canada: “… the museum becomes critical to the long-range health of a place: central to think-tanks, planning initiatives and community transformations… It is an institution others actively seek for guidance and expertise, harvesting from its knowledge, communication methodologies, community connections, and relationships. In such an ecosystem, the museum’s role does not have to be explained or rationalized: [others] embed it in their governance, research and educational programs” (see Jacqueline Gijssen, 2008. Museums in 2020: change and connectivity. Muse November/December, 44-46). And from the UK: “Museums in 2020 should be radical and participative institutions at the heart of their communities. They should be working in partnership with third-sector organisations to develop formal and informal learning, health and wellbeing, skills and social change. Museums are already the most innovative public institutions in the arts and cultural sector. By 2020, they should have turned this expertise outwards, to become centres for public creativity and local enterprise”. However at AAM’s 2011 annual meeting, a keynote had issued this warning: “If in 2050 we were delivering the same messages, either we’ve failed at affecting change in society and still needed to give those messages, or we just got left behind and we were no longer on the frontier of what mattered in society” (see AAM, 2011. The future is in the stars: an interview with Neal deGrasse Tyson. Museum March-April, 47-51). Time will tell.

Footnote

As the pandemic surged and museums closed, I thought about how the medical profession integrates epidemiology—the branch which deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health―in its comprehensive approach. Indeed, it became clear that continuous learning from a long and wide horizon is a vital focus of any association aspiring to be part or the whole of a true profession.

About the Author

Emlyn Koster, PhD lived in Egypt, the UK and Canada before moving to the US. His career phases have been as a geologist at UNESCO World Heritage Sites, the CEO of four nature and science museums, and an advocate for holistic approaches to humanity’s disruption of the Earth’s health. Recognition includes board presidency of the Geological Association of Canada, Humanitarian of the Year by the American Conference on Diversity, Alumni of Excellence at Canada’s University of Ottawa, and invited membership on the Ambassadors Circle for the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience. He is an Adjunct Professor in Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at NC State University. He can be reached at koster.emlyn@gmail.com and his previous RK&A blog posts are here.

The post Imagine: Museums Engaging with the Issues of an Anxious World appeared first on RK&A.

As we look toward 2022 and beyond, many museums are working to implement their new or existing missions, values, and initiatives that embrace and foreground diversity and inclusion. As an emerging museum professional and a Black woman who has often felt excluded from institutional spaces, this is heartening to me. But, at the same time, I wonder how museums will fulfill their promises. As someone who has felt the lasting sting of exclusion and microaggressions, I want accountability and action. How will museums invest time in communities, create inclusive spaces, and prompt staff and visitors to question the very systems of power that have built museums? Importantly, how will this work exist as DAILY truths and practices?

In fact, I believe that DEAI is activated not only by long-term goals, but also by DAILY acts. In the museum field, how are we making more inclusive museum programs, content, and spaces through everyday practices? After all, genuine DEAI work affects each employee and department daily (as my former supervisors Dionne Custer Edwards at the Wexner Center for the Arts and Sarah Durkee at the National Gallery of Art taught me). As Shades Collective states, it is a “complete lifestyle and mindset change.”

For this blog post, I discuss lessons I learned throughout my academic and professional career for implementing daily, long-standing DEAI goals. I ponder how DEAI practices are not simply initiatives but daily practices we embody.

Analyze the systems around you

White supremacy and institutional racism are not abstract concepts – they live in laws and daily decisions. Therefore, we must be critical of the systems that affect our daily lives. As a college art student, I asked why art historical canons did not showcase artists that looked like me. As an English teacher, I encouraged my students to critically analyze contemporary and historical sources. As a graduate student, I researched how policies and practices (written by human authors) construct and reaffirm race through material and visual cultures.

Eventually, this analytical mindset became a daily tool for assessing museum work, whether it be in community engagement or interpretation. During an interpretive strategy meeting, I would contemplate, what art historical sources have shaped our understanding of this artist? How might these sources be biased or tell one facet of an artist and their work? How can we empower visitors to participate in discussions about exclusionary histories and power imbalances?

Learn definitions, embrace uncertainty, and lead with questions

To embrace DEAI in our daily lives, we must be life-long learners. Museum educators often share definitions with their visitors and use inquiry-based learning in their approaches. As a graduate school instructor, I learned how to ground discussions in definitions; for example, in my courses on social identity, we would spend the first week defining terms such as “cultural identity.” I realized that inquiry was essential for engaging students in conversations about social issues: inquiry-based learning, importantly, requires students to take a personal interest in and responsibility for their learning and encourages them to live with uncertainty. By following their own questions and interests, they realized how discrimination and institutional racism were part of their daily lives. Similarly, we must take ownership of our learning (i.e., researching and knowing definitions such as critical race theory) and lead with questions (i.e., acknowledging that the definitions we find are starting points – we can always learn more).

Understand your multifaceted identity and explore its relation to others  

Self-awareness is essential for DEAI work: we must recognize difference; then, we can seek collaboration through that difference. Each day, we must consider the multiple identities we hold and how they intersect with the people around us. This encourages us to reflect on how we treat others and consider how identity lives through objects and performances. For example, as an intern at the Wexner Center for the Arts, I participated in diversity training led by Dr. Melissa Crum’s Mosaic Education Network. In the workshop, we discussed our identity markers, biases, and internal conflicts. This reflective work, which acknowledged people’s different realities, was an important first step for openly discussing how inequity, privilege, and intersectionality manifest in museums.

Engage, respect, and empower multiple perspectives

Conversations about re-envisioning museum collections and programs are truly discussions about power. Who gets to contribute? Who gets to speak? How are we practicing not simply equality but equity? How are these multiple perspectives valued, listened to, and incorporated into interpretive and programmatic efforts? Here, I find the “leaderful model” applicable. The leaderful model, used by organizers in the Black Lives Matter movement, embraces horizontal, de-centralized leadership, encouraging everyone to be involved.

Who gets to contribute? Who gets to speak? How are we practicing not simply equality but equity?

In 2015, myself, students, faculty, staff, and community organizers gathered to form the OSU Coalition for Black Lives. We used this leaderful model, rotating administrative and agenda-setting duties. This allowed us to challenge traditional hierarchies and not simply listen to, but empower, multiple perspectives. Entering the museum world as an intern for the Wexner Center’s Shumate Council (a leadership group dedicated to engaging Black audiences and contemporary art), I saw first-hand how the council’s decentralized leadership allowed council decisions to be a collaborative process. These decisions built a sense of community and shared responsibility.

Certainly, a leaderful model is antithetical to museums’ traditionally hierarchical structures. But we need to listen to the knowledge that organizers, community leaders, and social activists have developed over many years: multiple voices must be empowered to have substantial change. Thus, in our weekly meetings, we can ask, especially when engaging in community-based work, are we collaborating and partnering with organizations and groups outside of our immediate networks? Are we incorporating their thoughts and ideas into design and interpretive processes? Are we collaborating with groups across several initiatives, not just for a singular exhibition or event?

Be an active listener and a humble learner 

We need to be active listeners and humble learners in everyday life. In education and communication, we often hear about the benefits of “active listening,” a concept that recognizes listening as a “conscious activity.” (Here, I am also thinking of “active listening” not solely as an auditory activity, but rather an experiential one.) An active listener approaches communication with an open attitude and a willingness to understand and adapt. Significantly, I believe that, in daily life, active listening goes hand-in-hand with what Ann Hernandez describes as “humble learning.” A humble learner approaches situations with self-awareness and observation, making sure to check their norms at the door and adapt when necessary. Humble learning, similar to active listening, infuses vulnerability and social awareness into communication and collaboration. By being an active listener and humble learner, you can approach knowledge as a shared activity and recognize the limits of your expertise, aspects that are prerequisites for DEAI work. 

Living Out Our DEAI Goals

In this post, I have discussed some ways (but certainly not all ways) for integrating DEAI work into daily life. I want to stress that daily DEAI work, while it can encompass self-reflective exercises, cannot only be internalized work. Thoughtful DEAI practices enact self-reflection and ground-shifting changes in institutional commitments, workflow processes, and funding. There must be tangible, concrete plans for restructuring: inclusive hiring practices; pay for docents; equitable pay and safety for museum educators, frontline staff, and security guards; repatriation; acquisition of more diverse works; reexamination of funding; more diverse boards; decision-making parity with descendants; reinterpretation of museum collections; collaborative community engagement; and more. As a wary but hopeful emerging museum professional, I ask, how can we support these goals every day?

Helpful Resources

• Current News and Assessments in the Field
  • Smithsonian’s Initiative for Social Change, “Our Shared Future: Reckoning with Our Racial Past”
  • “Table Setting: The work before the work” by Levon Williams  
  • Center for the Future of Museums’ 2021 “TrendsWatch: Navigating a Disrupted Future”
  • Alliance of American Museums’ Facing Change: Advancing Museum Board Diversity & Inclusion
  • Montpelier: “‘Structural Parity’ in Unprecedented Board Restructuring”
• DEAI Resources
  • Reopening with Equity in Mind: Opportunities for Cultural Relevant Practice in Museums (webinar hosted by the Cultural Competence Learning Institute)
  • Creative Reaction Lab’s Equity-Centered Community Design
  • MASS Action: Museum as Site for Social Action
  • International Coalition of Sites of Conscience
  • Museums Are Not Neutral

The post Lessons Learned: Understanding DEAI as a Daily Practice appeared first on RK&A.

With enthusiastic support from Robert Mac West, editor and publisher of the Informal Learning Review (ILR), RK&A is pleased to share Emlyn Koster’s recent opinion, ‘Relevance’ of Museums: From Rhetoric to Reality? which was part of ILR’s pandemic-themed September/October 2021 issue.  Emlyn’s original article is reproduced in full below. It is followed by his additional ‘seeing the forest for the trees’ themed remarks, spurred by the topical context of the UN’s just-completed Climate Change Conference in Scotland and the UN’s just-announced 2022 Human Environment Conference next June in Sweden. Huge thanks to Robert and Emlyn for allowing us to repost this timely piece and commentary!

‘Relevance’ of Museums: From Rhetoric to Reality?

By: Emlyn Koster

“… Will history show that the Covid-19 pandemic stimulated the museum sector to take steps toward a resilient future? In 2009 Marjorie Schwarzer recalled in Museum News: “When the funds began to flow again, museums quickly forgot the shock of the Depression as well as their moments of innovation on behalf of the public… An opportunity to be societal role models for the wisest possible use of resources and talent was lost”. In 2012 when interviewed for an AAM Annual Meeting keynote address, Neil deGrasse Tyson predicted: “If in 2050 we were delivering the same messages, either we’ve failed at affecting change in society and still needed to give those messages, or we just got left behind and we were no longer on the frontier of what mattered in society”. 

‘Making Museums Matter’ in 2002 by Stephen Weil, a scholar emeritus at the Smithsonian, arguably continues to be the sector’s most thought-provoking book. ‘Beyond Management’, his last article in 2006 which was published by ICOM, emphasized the awkward fact that museums lack a standard for gauging their relative worthiness. They still do. At the core of the museum sector’s value lies the often used, but seldom defined, concept of relevance. With synonyms and antonyms that include pertinent and unconnected, respectively, it means being consequential to one or more specific matters at hand.

In his 1992 book ‘Visionary Leadership: Creating a Compelling Sense of Direction for Your Organization’, Burt Nanus cited a 1980 book about the genius of the composer Bach, the artist Escher and the logician Gödel. One way to imagine a more successful future is to synthesize new concepts by taking old ones and assembling them in new ways. In a 2006 AAM Museum News article, I opined that relevance involves topical content such as the divergence of society into rich and poor, the rise and fall of superpowers, the winning and losing of wars, and humanity’s disruption of the natural world. My recent article in AAM’s Exhibition journal elaborated on the paradigm shift that is needed to illuminate the Earth System with a holistic past-present-future mindset.

Each crisis confronting the world is named to enable public communication as it unfolds and for historical reference. When news breaks about catastrophes such as Delta, Dixie and Ida, most people soon grasp their what, why and how details. Yet for too long, progress of the museum sector—borne of a purpose to be reflective and inspirational resources―has been impeded by numerous perceptual disconnects. Homo sapiens are but one species among the millions of others who share Planet Earth. Nature and culture are interconnected. Environmental health and human health are interdependent. Academia and curatorship suffer from hyper-specialization. The different types of museums ought to blur their boundaries. Diversifying staff is only an advantage if this measure is surrounded by collateral big-picture actions. Timidity is the enemy of what is needed. The nice versus necessary debate is passé.

With this chapter of history besieged by a mutating pandemic, systemic racism, authoritarian regimes, and climate change with extreme weather, a profound introspection across the museum sector should be underway. While COVID-19 instantly resulted in major operational adjustments, airing of the hefty implications for each institution’s values, visions, missions, and strategies remains inadequate. What was already a busy agenda of apt topics for museums abruptly magnified into a vital focus if they are to be meaningful in today’s troubled world. The profound challenge before the museum sector is to seize this jolting period of environmental and societal changes as a launchpad for directional improvements and not just for operational adjustments. History tells us, however, that inertia tends to be a more powerful influence than courage.

As a geologist, museologist and humanist focused on the Anthropocene, my view of what urgently faces the museum sector is a wake-up call to become an integral player in the ecosystem of what matters locally and globally. Well-marketed meaningful experiences require deep directional thought with new stakeholders, including those who are rising up to publicly object to the status quo. In particular, it is my hope that this surfaces as a commitment to integrate the philosophies and priorities of associations and institutions. Well-informed, visionary, and effective leadership has never been more critical ...” 

Turning Rhetoric into Reality in Practice

The priority when I was appointed at the helm of the NC Museum of Natural Sciences in 2013 ― then in urgent need of a post-capital slowing of pace and directional clarity — was an organization-wide situation analysis. Widely consultative and completed within six months, this was embraced as a blueprint for tackling strategic and operational needs and became recalled as a pivotal step when AAM issued its report on the Museum’s re-accreditation in 2017. An anecdote about generative thinking in a Harvard Business School research summary had been instructive. A staff member excitedly updating a board meeting that an approach to an institutional challenge had just surfaced was met with a board member retort of “well, you haven’t asked the right core question yet!”. As the distant and close-up views of a forest and its trees imply, a bifocal vision is an imperative for museums in need of change, and especially so in this tumultuous world. One cannot grasp the nature and causes of a problematic situation by only considering parts of it.

Several years later when proposing a holistic ethos for nature-focused museums in the Anthropocene (see Emlyn Koster, Eric Dorfman and Terry Nyambe, 2018, A holistic ethos for nature-focused museums in the Anthropocene. In: The Future of Natural History Museums, edited by Eric Dorfman, Routledge: 29-48), I recommended two other planning approaches from outside the museum sector. The Triple Bottom Line approach was introduced in 1994 by a UK consultancy called SustainAbility. Advocating that sustainable decisions are characterized by balanced attention to three bottom lines —people (referring to social responsibility), planet (referring to environmental responsibility), and profit (referring to feasibility and growth) — the concept offers an important reminder that organizations should take a long-term and holistic perspective when formulating big decisions. Introduced in 2004 by two professors of strategy at INSEAD, one of the world’s top business schools, Blue Ocean Strategy is an approach contrary to conventional profit motives. Centered on the refreshing notion of uncontested market space, the example of Cirque de Soleil is commonly cited. This enterprise reinvented the core attribute of a circus with artistic performers replacing trained animals. This innovation together with news that two longstanding circuses and killer whale performances at a prominent marine park were ending were clear expressions of a new public conscience. As the Association of Zoos and Aquariums announced during that period, the time had come to envision a world where all people respect, value and conserve wildlife. For their part, museums ought to also probe their driving philosophy and practice in a generative and innovative manner.

About the Author

Emlyn Koster, PhD has been the CEO of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology, Ontario Science Centre, Liberty Science Center, and NC Museum of Natural Sciences. A distinguished alumnus of the University of Ottawa, his awards include Humanitarian of the Year by the American Conference on Diversity and volunteerism includes the Ambassadors Circle for the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience. The initial chair of ICOM’s Anthropocene working group and an adjunct professor in Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at NC State University, he can be reached at koster.emlyn@gmail.com and his previous RK&A blog posts are here.

The post ‘Relevance’ of Museums: From Rhetoric to Reality? appeared first on RK&A.

[…] this IRB 101 series, I have provided general context for IRBs, including what IRBs are and why they exist and potential risks to research participants to illustrate IRBs’ purpose. This post will help […]

In this IRB 101 series, I have provided general context for IRBs, including what IRBs are and why they exist and potential risks to research participants to illustrate IRBs’ purpose. This post will help you determine—if indeed you are conducting human subjects research—whether it is exempt from IRB review.

What are exemptions?

The Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides federal regulations for human subjects research. One part of the regulation known as Subpart A, or the Common Rule, identifies exemption categories for human subjects research. OHRP updated the Common Rule in 2018. OHRP now identifies eight categories of human subjects research that are considered exempt from the Department of Health and Human Services’ regulatory requirements. All eight categories are found here, described technically.

Exemptions applicable to visitor studies research and evaluation

Interpreting the technical language of the eight exemption categories can prove confusing. Here, I describe (in as plain language as possible) the four exemptions categories that are likely to apply to visitor studies research and evaluation in museums. Keep in mind that all exemption categories describe research practices that pose no more than minimal risk to research participants. The exemption categories aim to identify what about the research process makes it pose no more than minimal risk to research participants.

Exemption Category 2

Are you collecting surveys, interviews, or observations of public behavior?

If yes, your study may be exempt under Exemption Category 2. The study is exempt if the identity of the human subjects participating (the people you are collecting data from) cannot be readily ascertained (e.g., anonymous data, or data delinked from identifiers like names or email addresses, and kept confidential); OR if the identity of human subjects is disclosed, the disclosure does not have detrimental consequences or potential risks.

Examples of exempt research in this category:

• An anonymous survey of a random sample of adult visitors
• Interviews with teachers about their program experience
• Unobtrusive observations of families at the museum

For research with children, observations of public behaviors can be exempt under this category (i.e., observations of families at the museum). However, surveys or interviews with children are not exempt under this category because any interactions with children are subject to greater oversight.

Exemption Category 3

Are you collecting study information involving a benign behavioral intervention (e.g., changing noise in exhibitions) OR using audiovisual recording?

If yes, the study may be exempt under Exemption Category 3 if the human subject consents.  Plus, as in Exemption Category 2, the study is exempt if you can’t easily identify participants OR disclosure of participants’ identity does not have detrimental consequences or potential risks.

Examples of exempt research in this category:

• An experimental study where adult visitors consent to experience an interactive with ambient noise and without noise (e.g., benign interview)
• Audio-recorded interviews with teachers about their program experience (with their consent)
• Adult visitors video recording their visit to an exhibition after consenting to participate in the study.

No research with children is exempt under this category.

Exemption Category 4

Are you analyzing old data sets that other researchers collected?

If yes, the study may be exempt under Exemption Category 4. Private information that is publicly available, or that was recorded in a way that the subjects can no longer be identified, is considered “secondary use.” Research with secondary use data is usually exempt from IRB review.

Examples of exempt research in this category:

• Analyzing publicly available open access data
• Conducting analysis on data previously collected by another researcher (who had IRB permission); you are provided data delinked from identifiers

Exemptions NOT applicable to visitor studies research and evaluation

Exemption Category 1

It may be tempting to say visitor studies research is exempt under Exemption Category 1. This category describes research in commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices. While museums might consider themselves to be educational settings, research within museum settings are not exempt under this category because they are not considered “commonly accepted educational settings.”

Still feeling lost?   

Do you still feel confused as to whether you need IRB review or not?  In my next post, I will share a decision tree that distills this information even further.

The post IRB 101: What types of human subjects research are exempt from IRB? appeared first on RK&A.