The bicentenary of the abolition of the Slave Trade Act brought with it an expectation of an open dialogue between museums and local communities.
But among some museum professionals it has left a perception of a lack of serious commitment to the collaborative process on the part of their institutions and a level of cynicism as to what, if anything, will come out of the bicentenary year.
In 2007, due to some unease about modes of community collaboration in preparation for the bicentenary, I was asked in my capacity as the chair of Greater Manchester's Revealing Histories: Remembering the Slave Trade consortium of museums and galleries to meet staff at several museums around the country, including, in some cases, senior management. A nervousness was evident, but also a desire to get it right.
However, as someone from one of the national museums put it: "Institutions were very late in committing to doing anything. Institutions won't commit where there's an element of risk… and in terms of a legacy for any of this work, it has not been thought through."
Such comments are widespread and demonstrate that many museums appear to have been caught out by the need to work collaboratively with communities in developing programmes, exhibitions and sometimes whole galleries related to the bicentenary.
While they were aware of the need for community-led and/or co-produced outputs to mark the year, many museums were unprepared to answer requests for any real form of collaboration.
While a real desire for collaboration existed, the bicentenary sometimes highlighted confusion about the difference between consultation and collaboration, and more often a deep-rooted fear of the latter.
Above all it raised questions as to the level at which engagement and actual partnerships were taking place. What it showed was that museums need clearer definitions, commitment and, most importantly, leadership, when developing a sustainable practice of community partnerships.
The bicentenary also raised questions as to the willingness to open up the museum environment to acknowledge alternative and often uncomfortable histories and contemporary realities as part of the development of these relationships.
Fear of commitment and of challenges to institutional authority run throughout the comments that were made to me. One museum professional told me that as far as community collaboration was concerned, the word "collaboration" was probably not the right one to describe the museum's work with communities.
They said that in effect it just consisted of a lot of interviewing of individuals and community leaders for the production of the exhibition.
As a number of members of staff that have been responsible for the bicentenary activities are asking, in what way does this really begin to shift the perspectives of the institutions?
Another museum professional told me that "consultation" was not an accurate description of what actually took place in their museum: "I think the museum made a mistake in starting a process that was framed and understood internally as 'consultation'.
"While the museum asked for advice and opinions, there was not necessarily an impetus to accept what people advised or suggested. There has been a slight sense at certain levels that this process would be there to avert risk. It was not really about true collaboration."
This is echoed by a colleague in a national museum who added: "The gallery objects had been chosen and design had commenced by the time the consultation panel were invited in, so many of the things that would have made the gallery collaborative and facilitated a greater 'buy-in' were no longer available for discussion."
Despite its high profile, the bicentenary year once again demonstrated that this sort of work remains largely the responsibility of those staff members who are committed to it and still tends to come from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
So how are the lessons we are learning from working with communities in the bicentenary being used for wider strategic development?
One professional noted: "Even co-production is short term and bounded. It does not necessarily change the balance of power or decision-making process within the institution."
As we enter the lead-up to the 2012 Olympics in London, with an expectation of local community and international partnerships, the notion of what constitutes a "real partnership" must be properly examined. Let's not ignore the lessons of the bicentenary year.
Bernadette Lynch was the deputy director of the Manchester Museum at the University of Manchester. She is now a writer and consultant
www.revealinghistories.org.uk
But among some museum professionals it has left a perception of a lack of serious commitment to the collaborative process on the part of their institutions and a level of cynicism as to what, if anything, will come out of the bicentenary year.
In 2007, due to some unease about modes of community collaboration in preparation for the bicentenary, I was asked in my capacity as the chair of Greater Manchester's Revealing Histories: Remembering the Slave Trade consortium of museums and galleries to meet staff at several museums around the country, including, in some cases, senior management. A nervousness was evident, but also a desire to get it right.
However, as someone from one of the national museums put it: "Institutions were very late in committing to doing anything. Institutions won't commit where there's an element of risk… and in terms of a legacy for any of this work, it has not been thought through."
Such comments are widespread and demonstrate that many museums appear to have been caught out by the need to work collaboratively with communities in developing programmes, exhibitions and sometimes whole galleries related to the bicentenary.
While they were aware of the need for community-led and/or co-produced outputs to mark the year, many museums were unprepared to answer requests for any real form of collaboration.
While a real desire for collaboration existed, the bicentenary sometimes highlighted confusion about the difference between consultation and collaboration, and more often a deep-rooted fear of the latter.
Above all it raised questions as to the level at which engagement and actual partnerships were taking place. What it showed was that museums need clearer definitions, commitment and, most importantly, leadership, when developing a sustainable practice of community partnerships.
The bicentenary also raised questions as to the willingness to open up the museum environment to acknowledge alternative and often uncomfortable histories and contemporary realities as part of the development of these relationships.
Fear of commitment and of challenges to institutional authority run throughout the comments that were made to me. One museum professional told me that as far as community collaboration was concerned, the word "collaboration" was probably not the right one to describe the museum's work with communities.
They said that in effect it just consisted of a lot of interviewing of individuals and community leaders for the production of the exhibition.
As a number of members of staff that have been responsible for the bicentenary activities are asking, in what way does this really begin to shift the perspectives of the institutions?
Another museum professional told me that "consultation" was not an accurate description of what actually took place in their museum: "I think the museum made a mistake in starting a process that was framed and understood internally as 'consultation'.
"While the museum asked for advice and opinions, there was not necessarily an impetus to accept what people advised or suggested. There has been a slight sense at certain levels that this process would be there to avert risk. It was not really about true collaboration."
This is echoed by a colleague in a national museum who added: "The gallery objects had been chosen and design had commenced by the time the consultation panel were invited in, so many of the things that would have made the gallery collaborative and facilitated a greater 'buy-in' were no longer available for discussion."
Despite its high profile, the bicentenary year once again demonstrated that this sort of work remains largely the responsibility of those staff members who are committed to it and still tends to come from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
So how are the lessons we are learning from working with communities in the bicentenary being used for wider strategic development?
One professional noted: "Even co-production is short term and bounded. It does not necessarily change the balance of power or decision-making process within the institution."
As we enter the lead-up to the 2012 Olympics in London, with an expectation of local community and international partnerships, the notion of what constitutes a "real partnership" must be properly examined. Let's not ignore the lessons of the bicentenary year.
Bernadette Lynch was the deputy director of the Manchester Museum at the University of Manchester. She is now a writer and consultant
www.revealinghistories.org.uk
