I began as a Diversify Positive Action Trainee at Wolverhampton Art Gallery in March 2004, having graduated from Sussex with a degree in history of art the previous summer.
Poor, but with a passion for art history and museums, I leapt at the chance to gain two years' work experience in a museum and a masters degree in museum studies into the bargain.
My work at Wolverhampton was diverse and interesting and from the outset I was given demanding and exciting projects either to participate in or lead. I was supported and encouraged by wonderful staff, and I learned a great many skills that have enabled me to obtain a new, permanent role, as the social inclusion officer at the Herbert Museum and Art Gallery in Coventry.
The Diversify scheme has allowed me to improve and contribute, and has given me the opportunity to gain a postgraduate degree which I would otherwise have been unable to afford.
But Diversify has not been an entirely positive experience, largely due to the way in which it chooses trainees. The first time I met other trainees was at a Diversify review day in June 2004. I noticed that many were from middle-class backgrounds, and as such were surely unlikely to have had many problems gaining museum work or the funds to do a masters.
The Museums Association (MA), and the host museums for the traineeships, recognise that the scheme will not address the most under-represented communities; but by employing trainees who are from the privileged end of the spectrum, surely the MA and the host museums are shooting themselves in the foot?
The MA states that the museum workforce in the UK comprises just 4.4 per cent of people from minority ethnic backgrounds. But while trainees from such backgrounds could allow their ethnicity to broaden the perceptions of museums and their visitors when it comes to less well-known or maligned areas of collections, a number of positive action trainees seem to have gone in the opposite direction.
Obviously, this is their own prerogative, and it would be a gross misconception to expect all positive action trainees to want to specialise in, say, African art because they have an African background. But to me the point of Diversify is to bring in staff from varied backgrounds and consequently alter the way in which museums approach their work.
If museums maintain old-fashioned attitudes to collections and middle/upper-class notions of access and interpretation, the scheme will make no genuine impact.
The idea behind Diversify is brilliant, and a very noble attempt at addressing a tough subject, but I think that museums need to begin diversifying their own attitudes within their staff before congratulating themselves on the successes of the scheme.
Ultimately, the museums workforce in the UK will not be diverse unless the people they employ are from diverse backgrounds. Any kind of traineeship is positive - it enables people to gain transferable skills and, in this case, further academic qualifications.
But I often felt I was being 'patted on the head' by staff from other museums, while the host museum bosses stood by and nodded smugly, congratulating each other on their own brilliance.
Host museums and other colleagues need to recognise that Diversify should not be tokenistic. It is an attempt to transform the UK's museum workforce by bringing in employees that represent the ever-changing communities that they serve.
It would be wrong to blame the MA entirely for the lack of diversity within the programme. Rather, a cause for this shortfall in applicants/trainees from less privileged backgrounds may be in part due to the status of museums within the national psyche.
Perhaps the culture of museum visiting is not instilled in these groups at a young age and as a result the enthusiasm and drive for museums is not there.
The MA should work alongside the various outreach and social inclusion schemes that operate within museums to encourage young people to get involved with museums and see the sector as a potential career path.
By starting at grassroots level the MA may be able to increase the number of ethnically diverse staff within British museums and in turn increase the diversity of museum exhibition and collections work.
I have no wish to bite the hand that feeds me, and I will be eternally grateful to the MA, and indeed Wolverhampton, for giving me such a tremendous opportunity. But I would argue that the Diversify scheme needs to do what its name says, rather than add people to the museum workforce who are the same as the ones already there.
Aysha Afridi is the social inclusion officer at the Herbert Museum and Art Gallery, Coventry
Poor, but with a passion for art history and museums, I leapt at the chance to gain two years' work experience in a museum and a masters degree in museum studies into the bargain.
My work at Wolverhampton was diverse and interesting and from the outset I was given demanding and exciting projects either to participate in or lead. I was supported and encouraged by wonderful staff, and I learned a great many skills that have enabled me to obtain a new, permanent role, as the social inclusion officer at the Herbert Museum and Art Gallery in Coventry.
The Diversify scheme has allowed me to improve and contribute, and has given me the opportunity to gain a postgraduate degree which I would otherwise have been unable to afford.
But Diversify has not been an entirely positive experience, largely due to the way in which it chooses trainees. The first time I met other trainees was at a Diversify review day in June 2004. I noticed that many were from middle-class backgrounds, and as such were surely unlikely to have had many problems gaining museum work or the funds to do a masters.
The Museums Association (MA), and the host museums for the traineeships, recognise that the scheme will not address the most under-represented communities; but by employing trainees who are from the privileged end of the spectrum, surely the MA and the host museums are shooting themselves in the foot?
The MA states that the museum workforce in the UK comprises just 4.4 per cent of people from minority ethnic backgrounds. But while trainees from such backgrounds could allow their ethnicity to broaden the perceptions of museums and their visitors when it comes to less well-known or maligned areas of collections, a number of positive action trainees seem to have gone in the opposite direction.
Obviously, this is their own prerogative, and it would be a gross misconception to expect all positive action trainees to want to specialise in, say, African art because they have an African background. But to me the point of Diversify is to bring in staff from varied backgrounds and consequently alter the way in which museums approach their work.
If museums maintain old-fashioned attitudes to collections and middle/upper-class notions of access and interpretation, the scheme will make no genuine impact.
The idea behind Diversify is brilliant, and a very noble attempt at addressing a tough subject, but I think that museums need to begin diversifying their own attitudes within their staff before congratulating themselves on the successes of the scheme.
Ultimately, the museums workforce in the UK will not be diverse unless the people they employ are from diverse backgrounds. Any kind of traineeship is positive - it enables people to gain transferable skills and, in this case, further academic qualifications.
But I often felt I was being 'patted on the head' by staff from other museums, while the host museum bosses stood by and nodded smugly, congratulating each other on their own brilliance.
Host museums and other colleagues need to recognise that Diversify should not be tokenistic. It is an attempt to transform the UK's museum workforce by bringing in employees that represent the ever-changing communities that they serve.
It would be wrong to blame the MA entirely for the lack of diversity within the programme. Rather, a cause for this shortfall in applicants/trainees from less privileged backgrounds may be in part due to the status of museums within the national psyche.
Perhaps the culture of museum visiting is not instilled in these groups at a young age and as a result the enthusiasm and drive for museums is not there.
The MA should work alongside the various outreach and social inclusion schemes that operate within museums to encourage young people to get involved with museums and see the sector as a potential career path.
By starting at grassroots level the MA may be able to increase the number of ethnically diverse staff within British museums and in turn increase the diversity of museum exhibition and collections work.
I have no wish to bite the hand that feeds me, and I will be eternally grateful to the MA, and indeed Wolverhampton, for giving me such a tremendous opportunity. But I would argue that the Diversify scheme needs to do what its name says, rather than add people to the museum workforce who are the same as the ones already there.
Aysha Afridi is the social inclusion officer at the Herbert Museum and Art Gallery, Coventry
