Instrumental museum and gallery policy: issues and opportunities

Three workshops sponsored by the Arts and Humanities Research Council

Notes of discussion from Workshop 3

Comments / questions after papers

Elizabeth Silva

Could political effects of participation be identified in the results of the research as Bourdieu did? Bourdieu inferred – not identified in Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Can’t identify the effects from the data – but some attended events as part of their social position. How open are hierarchies to outside groups? Some occupations have access to structures of power. Moving people between groups? ES not have specific conclusions on this. If class is important attention needs to be given to this when considering governing bodies – efforts at wider representation not take this into account. ES – main determinants were education and age – education class related. Limits to what can be achieved by the sector. ES sees culture as a ’way of life’. Social mobility appears to be declining in Britain. John Goldthorpe’s work (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0006/status.html) on consumption and social stratification has some parallels. ES’s approach to social class is different – more based upon Bourdieu. The ACE Taking Part survey also shows interesting equivalents – determinants identified – include education, ethnicity and gender.

Mark Taylor

The problem of what is instrumental and what is not how to distinguish between the two? Excellence – in some minds – means intrinsic – issue for management. Questions also over what is core activity and what is not – change over time – where does education fit? Excellence of experience / engagement and impact not product. DCMS and some institutions appear to be going against this view. There is a need to change attitudes in DCMS etc. Targets are about good management – benefits can be identified. Museums are not a cure for cancer but activities that develop social capital are associated with living longer – those who value themselves live longer. If look at the data from the ACE Arts Debate – no distinction between instrumental and intrinsic – makes little sense to participants themselves. Want ACE to create excellent experiences. Problem is that if McMaster is implemented would put responsibility in the hands of a small group of professionals to judge the success of an activity. All activities in the sector are profoundly instrumental – practice and taste – inevitably self defining. Need to involve the public in this process. Not sure at present what the government makes of the McMaster report – if not careful this could undermine much of the progress made in the last ten years.

The process of setting up museums and galleries is social engineering – the activities are less important than the power structures they operate within. If the sector goes back to what it was 25 years ago will demonstrate that the commitment was not there in the first place. Language might indicate a drift to the right. If cutbacks are implemented – might tend to retreat to collection management and conservation – changes are not embedded. Maybe the dichotomy is not between intrinsic and instrumental but intrinsic and extrinsic – the sector needs to articulate objectives more effectively. Peer review might have some benefits – only ever tend to hear about best practice – not self reflective / self critical. Need greater confidence. Intrinsic is being used in different ways in the debate – essential / of the essence and also used to bring back arguments about quality – effect / emotions etc. Title of McMaster report should be Measurement and Judgement – not Measurement to Judgement – balance to be had. Rand document – Gifts of the Muse (http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG218.pdf) makes statements about individual responses to art works and then applies them to institutions – problematic links. ES – everything is socially constructed – categories can become empty – instrumental / intrinsic – even if you are aware of this where does it take you? What are we constructing when we construct a museum? A much more interesting question.

Javier Stanziola

Contingent valuation – some of questions asked using this methodology are not always that clear to visitors – danger of ignoring whole bodies of study – really need to bring in a range of specialists – use valuable aspects and ignore those that don’t work in the cultural sector. For example, our understanding of the visitor experience tends to be ignored if the economic approach is followed single-mindedly.

There is a need for a rapid response from DCMS, this makes funding longer term research difficult. Funding streams go against what is needed – hard to get money from the AHRC for applied research. Need to argue with DCMS for research that might not tie in with short-term policy priorities – but might have a longer term impact. Need a different model. JS states there is some longer term research being funded and planned – three years. There is acknowledgment that models are always going to be problematic – but still need to go forward. Some concern about the split between pure and applied research in this area – too much divergence. Uncertainty over the value of academic debate – but any practical approach does need to be robust. Worries over the loss of infrastructure with the cuts to the MLA – danger this will result in fragmentation – continue with small scale anecdotal evaluations of projects. Cultural problem that research that has been carried out does not impact upon policy – if we really have evidence based policy there should be some link. What is feasible – what is the market – realistic projections? People have the right to be bored by museums and not attend. What are success factors? Do we need a more sophisticated view of cultural consumption than we have at present?

Mark O’Neill

Many working in the sector find it hard to articulate what they were doing. These questions were not about this group – or the lifetime of this government, it is about helping us to work with the public – what are we capable of and how can we do it better? Work at the Powerhouse Museum Sydney – looked at the intrinsic motivations for visiting on the day – what is going on inside people’s heads. Example of the autistic person is an interesting one – not always using the correct methodology or asking the right questions – despite the efforts that are made. Often talk about changing lives – but has anyone asked those who engage with exhibitions or projects? Ethical dimension often ignored – feels very top down.

Those who work in museums and galleries have to want to do this – if don’t will not happen. This is a political argument – some feel that such an approach will infringe upon practice – there is fear about the unknown – need to articulate what we are advocating more effectively. When asking for proof – might be an effective way of delaying action – little effort is made to justify an alternative position – don’t want to change – absence of argument. There is a lack of confidence – profession feels undervalued and underfunded – also a concern about the reaction by peers – elitism plays a part. GB done some research on museums as organisations – both models seem to work. Competing professional discourse – who should be in ascendancy in the museum – marketing, collection management etc. Also a lack of confidence in taking risks – as they saw it. There is an identifiable difference between national and local museums. For local museums civic pride more important not evaluation studies – none based upon impact assessment – all the big decisions based upon civic pride.

Final comments

Need an approach that is not instrumental or intrinsic – more holistic way of understanding value in modern society – increasing attention to planning – moving away from targets to planning for results – qualitative or quantitative approaches – depending on what is appropriate.

Could widen the agenda – explore omissions, for example, little attention has been given to informal (or non-formal) learning and its relationship to formal learning. Need to consider informal self generating activities – tend to be ignored.

In some senses we know what works – quite a lot of research has been done – need to accept that effects are understood – don’t have to keep reproducing the same research time after time – move towards quality measures – continuous improvement.

In community museums the audience is the community – no differentiation – producers are also consumers.

Perhaps can’t take for granted what works – see effects on the individual level – personal identity – self esteem etc – but less confident when extrapolating that to groups and wider society. How does the personal relate to the social? All happens within a social space. For some participants in projects the sense of validation that is involved is of great importance.

Not about research and methods, what is missing is leadership. When evidence is required – not sure what is meant? What is needed to convince government of the sector’s case? What meant by impact? There is some guidance from the Cabinet Office and DCMS – when evidence is needed will always find something – the language changes. Even the way that data is collected from the museums covered by Renaissance is inconsistent – what chance has the rest of the sector got. In reality it’s not about making the best case or the next funding round but doing the job better. The problem is that the political pressures to produce results in months mean that effective research is difficult to plan / carry out / fund.

There needs to be more effective bridges between the academic, policymaker and practitioner communities – a need for better communication – much academic work is unknown to policy makers / practitioners and vice-versa.

Sara Selwood – the aims of the funding stream was to bring academics / policy makers / practitioners together to work on common issues. What did people expect – were those expectations fulfilled and where should we go next?

Javier Stanziola – takes a pragmatic approach – the question is how to move forward and to avoid going over old ground – wants to work on policy.

Gaynor Bagnall – no great expectation – exploration – academics can get divorced from what happens on the ground.

Carol Scott – find out more about the UK policy context.

David Anderson – was initially concerned about the use of the Instrumental / intrinsic model – found the debate useful raised many issues – more information – where go next?

Mark Taylor – clearer about views on McMaster – moving on without going over old ground.

Ben Gibbons – public affairs manager of AHRC – need to communicate the results of research to policy makers / politicians.

Alec Coles – wanted to focus upon these issues and move thinking forward – important to bring together the different sectors – to get away from short-term thinking – policy on the hoof. Need to do some research to move things forward. What is the potential of the sector?

Mark O'Neill – good to have space to think – two professions – one cares about public and the other does not. Democratisation of the sector – been a constructive exercise.

Clive Gray – not in a museums studies department – never looked at museums – opportunity to learn more and to apply thinking to new parts of the cultural arena. Not heard much of what was said before – the problems of museums and galleries are common to other areas. Interesting questions about the internal politics of the sector – more complex than those that care about the public and those that do not – subject area is very divided – curatorial ideology. Could do a comparison within the cultural field.

Lisanne Gibson – for enlightenment – has worked on value – interesting to hear more about the British context – ran similar series of events that considered the historic environment – think ‘blue sky’ discussion has great value – don’t have to have a clear outcome.

Fiona Davison – validated approach she has taken to thinking about impact – contacts will also be very useful.

Rhiannon Mason – need to feed thinking into teaching MA students in Newcastle – greatly value the time to do this – not tied to an outcome – need to build better links between universities / policy makers / practitioners – very frustrating – not linked up. Question about what would happen if heritage is included?

Ratan Vaswani – greater understanding of issues – ideas for MA training / activities.

Joanne Orr – very stimulating debate – having space to think about these issues is important – has fed back into practice. Need to try out ideas – links with universities help.

John Hentley – the practical application is important – take care not to re-invent the wheel – pull together consensus – possibly – what works guides. Doing better.

Fiona McLean – the workshops have hit all the key objectives – generated questions to take forward – given great food for thought – network draw upon is valuable.

Ann Fletcher-Williams – key areas collaborative discussion – found it useful will inform work doing in the museum – hoped that there might have been more input from the policy maker side.

Emily Kearney – very valuable to spend time on such a discussion – interesting to understand how other people are reacting to issues.

Andrew Newman – hit all the targets we were aiming at – ended up with a greater understanding of cultural policy – need to keep this moving on – frustration about lack of communication between different groups – not talk to each other enough.

Ratan Vaswani – could have a regular slot at the end of the Museums Association Conference – to provide a forum for communication.

Limited number of people with a passion about this – this has given us a glimpse of the possibilities – possible action research initiative. Three years minimum – 10 -15 years.

Useful to include heritage in any thinking - intangible heritage seen differently – heritage sites are sometimes seen as more attractive to visitors.

National Museum Directors Conference might fund some research to take this forward.