Should we be working on better networks?
Finding strength in diversity
At a time when the museum world is undergoing seismic shifts, we need to question the role of professional networks within our sector.
A survey of Museums Association (MA) members last year showed that they typically belonged to up to four other professional organisations.
Most of us would opt for quality over quantity, so it is worth asking whether this plethora of specialist organisations represents the best way to operate. Could we, as a profession, be better networked?
Anyone interested in the nature and potential of networks should read Network Logic, a set of essays published by Demos in 2004. It argues that while the current interest in networks is shaped by the revolution in digital communications, networks have always been essential to animal and human life.
Social networks vary, but they have certain common characteristics: they are self-organising; tend to lack logic or hierarchies; are built on trust; develop in response to need and morph rapidly.
The authors argue that many professional networks – they cite the boom in “new girl” networks since the 1980s – effectively undercut traditional power bases and structures.
Many of the networks in our sector have felt radical at times and clearly all of them answer some need. MA members cited all kinds of reasons for belonging to networks, from keeping up with research to contact with peers.
The ideal professional network would probably combine the warmth of a large party of friends, the support of the Samaritans and the social advantage of the masons.
We need our networks for a sense of identity and belonging and for survival. But do we need so many? And could we use them better?
The Demos authors argue that if we understood the nature of networks better, we could use them more effectively for collective action and peer learning. If our network memberships were more diverse, they could be stronger and more innovative.
The Turning Point Network , established by Arts Council England in 2006, is an interesting model. Based on a commitment to collaboration and collective action to strengthen the visual arts sector, it links more than 2,000 artists, arts organisations and arts professionals through 11 regional steering groups, each determining regional programmes, with working groups addressing national issues.
Should something similar exist for museums, perhaps led by the MA? Should some of our existing networks merge? It feels as though it may be time for change.
Sally MacDonald is the director of UCL museums and collections. She is also coordinating the Get Connected theme at this year’s Museums Association annual conference in Brighton (3-4 October)
www.museumsassociation.org/conference
A survey of Museums Association (MA) members last year showed that they typically belonged to up to four other professional organisations.
Most of us would opt for quality over quantity, so it is worth asking whether this plethora of specialist organisations represents the best way to operate. Could we, as a profession, be better networked?
Anyone interested in the nature and potential of networks should read Network Logic, a set of essays published by Demos in 2004. It argues that while the current interest in networks is shaped by the revolution in digital communications, networks have always been essential to animal and human life.
Social networks vary, but they have certain common characteristics: they are self-organising; tend to lack logic or hierarchies; are built on trust; develop in response to need and morph rapidly.
The authors argue that many professional networks – they cite the boom in “new girl” networks since the 1980s – effectively undercut traditional power bases and structures.
Many of the networks in our sector have felt radical at times and clearly all of them answer some need. MA members cited all kinds of reasons for belonging to networks, from keeping up with research to contact with peers.
The ideal professional network would probably combine the warmth of a large party of friends, the support of the Samaritans and the social advantage of the masons.
We need our networks for a sense of identity and belonging and for survival. But do we need so many? And could we use them better?
The Demos authors argue that if we understood the nature of networks better, we could use them more effectively for collective action and peer learning. If our network memberships were more diverse, they could be stronger and more innovative.
The Turning Point Network , established by Arts Council England in 2006, is an interesting model. Based on a commitment to collaboration and collective action to strengthen the visual arts sector, it links more than 2,000 artists, arts organisations and arts professionals through 11 regional steering groups, each determining regional programmes, with working groups addressing national issues.
Should something similar exist for museums, perhaps led by the MA? Should some of our existing networks merge? It feels as though it may be time for change.
Sally MacDonald is the director of UCL museums and collections. She is also coordinating the Get Connected theme at this year’s Museums Association annual conference in Brighton (3-4 October)
www.museumsassociation.org/conference