What Is the Collections Conundrum?

Museums are enjoying an uptick in visitation and support, partly because of a strong economy and partly because many museums have learned how to attract and serve audiences as never before. The success with visitors implies a focus on education and interpretation which has an unintended consequence in many cases: collections and their care may be relegated to last priority. In the best of worlds this means benign neglect and in the worst, deterioration and lack of access.

Good collections management means good physical and intellectual access. When collections are allowed to languish it undermines the research and development function of the museum. Research is the long-term support of future public programs. Without some focus on research and development, the museum risks its future success.

In 1997 we designed and delivered a workshop for the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC). The program was titled: Getting Things Done When You Are Not In Charge. The thirty or so attendees all had collections care as a priority. After two days of discussions, we formulated the following proposition:

The stakeholders of the problem of collections involve many groups: collections managers, curators, directors, registrars, board members, volunteers, and even the public. Each group holds some piece of the puzzle of collections care, yet they never meet together and address the issue. Collections care people meet at SPNCH, researchers and curators at the Association of Systematic Collections, directors at the Association of Science Museum Directors, botanists to Association of Arboretums and Botanical Gardens, registrars at the American Association of Museums, and trustees (if at all) at the Museum Trustee Association. Unless and until these stakeholders begin meeting regularly to find areas of common concern about collections, no significant progress will occur.

In the past decade the William Penn Foundation funded numerous projects intended to improve collection care in the Philadelphia region. In 1998 they supported a study of the region's museum collections which revealed:

• 66% do not have enough space to house current collections;
• 59% store some of their collections in sub?standard conditions;
• 41% decreased spending on collections in the last decade
• 42% have a conservation plan;
• less than 25% have a budget line item for acquisitions;
• 51% consider their climate control systems to be in poor or dangerous condition.
• 54 % have a line item budget item for collections care.
• only 60% make any level of documentation available to outsiders.

The Role of Collections: Creating Value

Every organization—government, business, or nonprofit—has as its raison d'etre the creation of value. Organizations engage in countless activity but the original core purpose, the driving force, of every healthy organization is the creation of value. Value is created by transforming some form of raw material into a useful product or service.

In a the business world value begins with research and development (R&D) The same is true for the museum world, often grounded in the collection and dependent upon scholarly research. The R&D goal in a museum should be to create synergy between the collection and various high value products-exhibits, publications, and interpretive programs. A physical collection without intellectual substance can be said to be a private hobby serving little, if any, public function.

R&D produces tomorrow's products and services. Businesses struggle with the tension of increasing short?term efficiencies by reducing investment in R&D. Businesses which reduce R&D may perform extraordinarily well short term only to find that they have neglected their future because of their failure to invest in R&D.

In the museum world, the failure to nurture the collection, research, and scholarship leads to a decline in the museum's intellectual capital and results in a museum unable to create value in the future.

It does no good to become efficient, if you are not effective. Over emphasis on efficiency often leads to neglect of the very functions that create effectiveness. An overemphasis on efficiency is generally acknowledged as the cause of the current crisis in the U.S. healthcare system.

Many individuals involved with collections care—curators, registrars, and researchers understand the need for increased attention to collections and research. Many struggle valiantly to persuade museums, agencies and foundations to increase their support of the collections and research process. This effort isn't making sufficient progress.

Fragmentation

Having spent decades with curators and collections staff, we're convinced that their collections concerns cannot be solved by the effort they have made. We believe that the value creation process, the nuclear reactor, of the museum exists in the synergetic relationship between collections, research, exhibitions, programs, and publications. This synergetic relationship generates the value for which the institution exists. Some museums have nearly abandoned collections and research. Some museum have become little more than a venue or distribution center for another organization's R & D.

As fragmentation occurs between collections management activities, research programs, exhibitions, interpretive programs and publications, it becomes increasingly difficult to create value. Thus, those concerned with collections focus on how to preserve them and neglect creating value for a wider audience. If those focusing on research are separated from exhibition design or interpretive staff, the research won't be appropriately incorporated into the museum's programs. If the director sees the collection as a more of a liability than an asset (and many do), it's unlikely that fund raising and other support efforts will be focused there.

You cannot solve a systemic problem by fixing a fragment of the system. Marv Weissbord, international developer of human systems solutions, has devoted his life to understanding how organizations change, and why they do not. His insights may be summed up in the following statement:

The feasibility of plans and their eventual implementation is not a function of how much time is spent planning; it is not a function of the quality of the plan; it is not a function of the detail in the plan. Rather it is a function of the extent to which people have made a shift in their capacity to act together.

Shifting the capacity to act together requires us to learn that we live in the same world, that we share a common fate, and that we can each trust each other despite our differences. If the stakeholders make the shift the possibility of successful new plans and change efforts go up exponentially.

The core issues facing museum collections in the United States cannot be solved until the key stakeholder groups come together to discover and build upon common ground. Ultimately they must explore the issues raised by the following questions.

1. Should a museum have collections?

2. Can you be a museum without a collection?

3. How much is enough?

4. What should we collect?

5. What are the specific mechanisms which enable collections research programs, exhibits and publications to create value?

6. Who really owns the collection?

7. How and where should collections be used and displayed?

8. Since the majority of collections are hidden from public view, how can we expect the public to support these invisible resources?

9. What are the potentials and possibilities for rationalizing collections within our institution, across institutions and disciplines?

10. What are the future visions we hold for collections.

Without a sense of being in the same boat, sharing a common fate, and trusting one another the natural tendency is to fragment. Thus, disgruntled members of the Association of Systematic Collections created the Association of Science and Technology Centers because ASC was too collections focused. Later, because the Association of Systematic Collections focused too much research issues, the collection managers created the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections (SPNHC). The directors, of course, wanted their own forum so they formed the Association of Science Museum Directors.

As splintering, huddling, and fragmenting occurs within professional functions, the walls between the groups get higher and become increasingly difficult to scale. As the members of each association hold a piece of the solution, the problem won't be solved without inter-group dialogue.

Fragmentation from Another Field

Repetitive stress injuries (RSI) are being diagnosed with increasing frequency in the workplace. A recent conference on RSI attracted many medical practitioners. At the end of the conference, the organizers could see that conference participants proposed only superficial solutions dealing with the symptoms, not the root causes of RSI.

Repetitive stress injuries occur because of the way work is designed. U.S. work is acheived by methods based in the industrial revolution, time/motion studies, and demands for increased efficiency and effectiveness. Impatient stockholders exacerbate the problem by seeking short-term gains with little regard for long-term effects.

In other words, repetitive stress injuries are symptoms of factors found in the basic design and drive in the modern corporation. By its nature corporations often neglect such seemingly minor employee complaints as RSI. Those affected by RSI eventually band together to grapple with issues of mutual concern. This very act of creating an association or a problem?solving conference fragments the problem by failing to sufficient involve those people or functions holding pieces of the puzzle to be solved. Resolving RSI will require that all parts of the organization learn more about it, not just those currently effected.

Three Tools for Defragmentation

I. The Beach Ball Effect
II. Aristotle's Insight
III. Dialogue

I. The Beach Ball Effect

Imagine two or more people meeting to address an issue. Allow a beach ball in the center to represent the issue. The more difficult, complex or sensitive the issue, the larger the ball. Each person sees his or her stripe of color and can't see the other's color. We each see different aspects of the issue. We each have different interpretations. We quite naturally expect everyone to see the world as we do. We fail to realize that different world views exist. Each person sees a single color and believes he sees the whole truth.

As each presents their view, it is oh so easy to convey that the other view is wrong and yours is right . . . and the beach ball grows and grows and grows.

The beach ball can be shrunk to manageable size if each person learns from the others. A climate which fosters learning is essential for this to happen. Learning from one another allows a team to discover new perspectives. Ultimately, learning expands the area of common ground upon which lasting solutions can be constructed.

II. Aristotle's Insight: Four Worlds of Any Problem

Aristotle described a particular type of beach ball when he identified three common methods of solving a problem or winning an argument.

1. Logos—addresses the logical, scientific, rational world.

2. Pathos—addresses the feeling, emotional world.

3. Ethos—addresses the ethical world.

Since about 1750 western civilization has had extraordinary success developing and applying logos. In our world of specialization each person focuses their knowledge and skill. People specialize as doctors, curators, administrators, educators, lawyers, engineers, scientists, programmers, accountants, conservators, ad infinitum. Specialization is a primary strategy for career success. We divide our organizations into functional specialties. In our logos dominated world we tend to believe that all problems can be solved by the expert; that science and technology can pretty much be used to address every problem.

The Machine Age best characterizes the specialized world of logos. World War II might be called the apex of logos thinking and problem solving. The ability of the U.S. to organize hierarchically into a command and control structure, direct research projects, produced machines and marshal men is perhaps the ultimate example of logos thinking. The ability of the U.S. to achieve technologically brought the war to a close. In contrast, for the U.S. the Vietnam War epitomizes the failure of logos thinking.

In Vietnam, the logos approach failed because of the complexity of the problem: terrain and cultural differences chief among the factors. Science and technology could not bomb and defoliate the enemy into submission.

In the 1960's we saw the world of logos beginning to loose efficacy and the emergence of other worlds described by Aristotle. Ethos or ethical issues raised by the Civil Rights Movement charted nonviolent methods of problem solving previously untested in the U.S. In the 1990s research by Howard Gardner and others points to the nature of emotion intelligence, which Aristotle references as pathos.

Rising concerns about the natural environment surfaced on the world stage in the 1960s and focused attention in an area Aristotle did not describe: We call this cosmos, or systems thinking.

The diagram below shows the four components likely to exist in any problem. By neglecting any area, problem solving efforts may be doomed to failure.

Principle: Assume any problem includes issues from all four quadrants.

Four Components of Every Problem

The Machine Age excelled in logos, the era in which collecting philosophy were developed. We cannot now solve collections problems without venturing into the larger system: cosmos. Nor can we neglect the issues raised in the ethos and pathos components as evidenced by their role in such issues as repatriation of Native American grave goods or spoils of war occasioned by Nazi occupation of European combatants.

II. Dialogue:

Dialogue is the interaction between people with different view points, intent on learning from one another. The purpose of this learning is to lay the foundation for creating new solutions. Dialogue differs from discussion which focuses on each person presenting, advocating, or selling their point of view to others. The intent of discussion appears to be winning, or convincing others of your view. Each side tends to dig in deeper and hold more firmly to their view. Simultaneously, each side becomes more and more convinced that the other's position is untenable. Rigidity creeps in, polarization occurs and the distance between the viewpoints increases. Taken to a logical extreme, discussion can escalate to litigation. Dialogue cannot occur when some people believe they have the word and that others do not.

Engaging in the technique of dialogue provide the chance to create something new-a new understanding. The focus is on changing oneself through the process of exploring ones own perspective or viewpoint, particularly as the dialogue surfaces differences. In other words, flexibility creeps in, and the distance between the viewpoints decreases as common ground is mutually discovered. New solutions can be built in this common ground, typically with very high degrees of energy and commitment. At the periphery of the common ground, many unresolved differences may lie. But the focus is not on trying to fight your way through these, rather the focus is on the common agenda created by the new learning. As actions are taken in the common areas, it is usual to find that the unresolved conflicts dissolve.

Elements of Dialogue

Learning: Your intention to learn is the foundation of dialogue. Even a unilateral commitment to learning can entice the other side into learning with you. Bruce Evans, Director of the Mint Museum, once remarked that the best meetings are those where the outcome was completely different from what he expected when the meeting began.

Humility: You cannot learn if you believe the other person is ignorant and do not perceive your own ignorance. It seems that the more formal education a person has, the more difficult it is to believe that those without an equivalent education can have anything to teach.

Mutual Respect: Respecting another person requires a modicum of humility. From a practical point of view this means that when you hear the other person say something that is not in agreement with your experience or view, you accept their viewpoint as valid. You don't discount or belittle it. You strive to understand how they could have come to their view. Dialogue is built upon the concept of mutuality. You and I will learn together. When the feeling is I will teach you or I will educate you, mutuality is lost; dialogue disappears. The opportunity for creativity is lost and, with it, the commitment to change.

Critical Thinking: Critical thinkers view reality as a continually changing process. Naive thinking, on the other hand, sees the realities of the past and expects the present to emerge from the past in a linear, normalized and well behaved manner. The naive thinker wants the future to accommodate to her accustomed past. The critical thinker participates in the transformation of reality on behalf of creating a better future. Dialogue both requires and fosters critical thinking.

Conditions of Dialogue

• Include stakeholders-everyone with authority, expertise, or power or those affected by the problem or the solution.

• Equity-everyone is entitled to an opinion.

• Put the tough issues on the table earlier rather than later.

• Participate, both verbally and mentally.

• Keep your mind in the room.

• Identify, explore and test assumptions.

• Stay open to a variety of outcomes; detach from a particular solution; don't force premature compromise.

• Tolerate ambiguity.

• Explore differences, don't smooth them over without depth of understanding.

• Avoid advocating, competing, convincing, selling and forcing.

• Seek first to understand, then decide.

• Time.

A Strategy For Collections Conundrum

1. Get the whole system in the room.
2. Help them learn from one another.
3. Seek first to understand, then to solve.

Implementing the strategy above requires a clear, measured course of action, outlined in the steps below:

1. Decide who is needed to take a decision and implement it.
   Who holds pieces of the puzzle?
   Who has a stake in the outcome?
   Who do you want to influence?
   Who has energy and commitment?
   Who can learn from the process?

2. Define the problem
   Articulate the rationale.
   Why this issue, why now?

3. Collect data. Do we have enough?

4. Deliberate the data. What does it mean?

5. Identify causes and barriers.

6. Create ideas for addressing the problem.

7. Formulate an action plan: What? How? Who? When?

8. Monitor and evaluate.

Using the steps above (or any similar process) requires that the leader constantly clarifies which step the team is working, avoids skipping steps, and keeps everyone in step.

Call to Action

We believe the collections conundrum requires concerted effort from all the players-foundations, government agencies, museum professionals, volunteers, scholars. We imagine that the highest leverage comes within the museum associations-national, state, and local. We believe that eighteen months of concerted effort would yield a sophisticated system leading to the solution of the collections conundrum. If you'd like to participate, please contact us.