Archive for June, 2017

Much of Intentional Practice work is about process, and a significant part of process work requires that we talk with each other.  I realize that humans exchange ideas verbally all the time, although given we live in the screen age (computers, phones, and pads), perhaps people are conversing face-to-face less and less.  And perhaps, as well, we need practice convening and having productive conversations.  This third principle of the seven principles of Intentional Practice is staff using inquiry and active listening to understand and appreciate varying viewpoints; it is about having productive conversations that support the work of your museum.  It is a principle because open, productive conversations among staff are necessary if a museum is to achieve impact.

#3: Staff use inquiry and active listening to understand and appreciate varying viewpoints.

RK&A uses inquiry (e.g., ask open-ended questions) for several reasons:  1) inquiry, with a few ground rules, creates a neutralizing and democratizing atmosphere that invites and welcomes all viewpoints; 2) inquiry promotes others to ask questions, and it is through conversation and dialogue that social, professional, and personal learning emerges; and 3) inquiry allows staff to come to their own understanding about an issue or topic; and 4) asking well-articulated and purposeful questions allows everyone to explore their thoughts, come to know their perspectives and the perspectives of others in their group, and reach a collective appreciation for all ways of knowing.  I realize that my view of inquiry and active listening may sound Pollyannaish, but because I have seen such conversations reach useful and invigorating ends, I believe fully in the principle.  I realize, as well, that the four points above are complicated and deserve their own individual blog post, if not a chapter in a book (which is forthcoming by the way—in about 18 months if all goes as planned), but, for today’s post, I have chosen to focus on the ground rules, as without rules of engagement, conversations easily can go awry. 

Ground rule #1: Participate with authenticity
First, in workshops we invite and encourage all workshop participants to contribute with authenticity.  We ask all participants to respect all others in the gathering as well as the purpose of the gathering; authentic and genuine participation is essential to a successful planning process.  We want to hear everyone’s genuine thoughts about the ideas under discussion.

Ground rule #2:  Listen to first understand, then respond
Second, while we encourage everyone to be themselves, we also request that everyone be respectful as the conversation ensues.  To that end, we encourage listening to understand—not to respond, at least not right away.  We recommend allowing ample time to process and understand before responding, so as to avoid knee-jerk reactions to potentially unpopular positions.  We respect what all individuals bring to a situation, and we recognize that all bring a unique and valuable intellect, commitment, passion, and experience to the group conversation.  If someone does not fully understand what someone is saying, we support asking additional questions to clarify a point that may not have been clearly expressed initially.

Ground rule #3: Realize process work is an art and science

Finally, the Cycle of Intentional Practice work is iterative and process-oriented.  Process work can be messy, and it also can be uncomfortable for some.  While most of the gatherings (e.g., workshops) may have a defined agenda, framework, and theory to support the work, we cannot anticipate exactly what will unfold throughout the course of the workshop; if we knew, we would be dismissing the uniqueness of the institution and individuals’ contributions.  The art emerges as we all respond to each other’s thoughts and we end up in an unexpected place of understanding; the art also emerges, with a little bit of science, in how we ask the questions, ensuring that we and others are asking balanced, non-leading, and unbiased questions.

 

Read Full Post »

Coffee Break Icon

Recently at RK&A, we’ve started gathering as an office for a bimonthly “Coffee Break” to discuss current issues and recent developments in the field.  For each Coffee Break, we select a current article, blog post, or other publication for everyone to read and reflect on.  So far, topics have ranged from data visualization to the role of museums as social innovators, and it has been fascinating to reflect on the museum field and our place in it with my colleagues.  We would like to invite you to learn along with us as we explore current topics and trends in the field in our “Coffee Break” blog series.

Last week, we discussed John Wetenhall’s article “Why Not to Run Your Museum ‘More Like a Business’” in AAM’s recent Museum issue (May/June 2017).  In the article, Wetenhall considers the increasing pressure some museums feel to run “more like a business.”  Business models value growth and often operate with the perspective that “bigger is better.”  When applied to museums, “bigger” takes many forms—growing attendance, membership, collections, and buildings—and as we discussed the article, we wondered along with Wetenhall, “But where does this lead?”  When a museum’s annual report presents its achievements through numbers, square footage, and the like, they do not reflect the museum’s deeper mission and purpose.

What resonated most with my work, as an evaluator, was Wetenhall’s call to action to “temper measures of quantity with the matrices of quality and impact.”  The “endless quest for more…weakens our institutions in the long run” because museums lose sight of their true mission—to make a difference in the lives of their visitors.  We work with museums and other informal learning institutions to help them articulate and achieve their intended impact on visitors, whatever that may be—whether to inspire, to enrich, to explore, or to teach.   The quantitative and qualitative data generated through evaluation can provide a metric of value that speaks more directly to a museum’s mission and impact on visitors than, for example, program attendance.  We hope our work helps museums focus on impact, improve the quality of visitor experiences, and demonstrate their public value in meaningful ways.

Read Full Post »