I’ve begun analysing the responses to the Museums 2020 discussion paper, which looks at the future of museums and their impacts. There are over 60 formal responses, and some 100 written comments from workshops, plus a similar number of points made on the Museums Association (MA) website.
It’s early days, but some key themes are beginning to emerge. There is support for the aim of Museums 2020 to be forward- and outward-looking and praise for its “passionate”, “inspirational” and “well written” account of, particularly, the social impact of museums.
The discussion paper has stimulated many people to think hard about the role and purpose of their museum, which is one of the key aims of the Museums 2020 exercise.
Of all the areas addressed in the discussion paper, there is particular support for museums to increase participation and co-production. Many museums are seeking input from people, groups and communities outside the museum and are enthusiastic to do more.
Some respondents feel that Museums 2020 neglects some key impacts and suggest it concentrates too much on social justice, at the expense of contribution to, for example, economic activity, tourism and research.
Some feel that the impacts discussed are rather generic and there is a need to describe the USP of museums that differentiates them from other public-service organisations. In this vein, some suggest that using collections to achieve impact is “core” to museums.
Several respondents think that the next version of Museums 2020 should explicitly recognise the differences between museums, serving varied communities, with different assets and accounting to diverse funders.
That could mark a departure from recent approaches to museum policy. Things such as accreditation, the MA code of ethics and Collections for the Future try to lay down general principles that apply to all museums.
At a time when museums are finding different solutions to deal with cuts in public funding, it may be necessary to revisit some of the fundamental assumptions about what every museum should do.
Email: maurice@museumsassociation.org
It’s early days, but some key themes are beginning to emerge. There is support for the aim of Museums 2020 to be forward- and outward-looking and praise for its “passionate”, “inspirational” and “well written” account of, particularly, the social impact of museums.
The discussion paper has stimulated many people to think hard about the role and purpose of their museum, which is one of the key aims of the Museums 2020 exercise.
Of all the areas addressed in the discussion paper, there is particular support for museums to increase participation and co-production. Many museums are seeking input from people, groups and communities outside the museum and are enthusiastic to do more.
Some respondents feel that Museums 2020 neglects some key impacts and suggest it concentrates too much on social justice, at the expense of contribution to, for example, economic activity, tourism and research.
Some feel that the impacts discussed are rather generic and there is a need to describe the USP of museums that differentiates them from other public-service organisations. In this vein, some suggest that using collections to achieve impact is “core” to museums.
Several respondents think that the next version of Museums 2020 should explicitly recognise the differences between museums, serving varied communities, with different assets and accounting to diverse funders.
That could mark a departure from recent approaches to museum policy. Things such as accreditation, the MA code of ethics and Collections for the Future try to lay down general principles that apply to all museums.
At a time when museums are finding different solutions to deal with cuts in public funding, it may be necessary to revisit some of the fundamental assumptions about what every museum should do.
Email: maurice@museumsassociation.org
