The Final Book Discussion—Live and In-Person (or perhaps on Skype)

Greetings one and all.  I hope that you’ve all been enjoying the book discussions thus far. I’m excited and impressed with all of the comments everyone has put out there so far. 

As you have no doubt noticed, we’ve come to the end of the books! It’s time for the final discussion. You are all invited—so here’s the deal,

Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 7:15 pm at The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis.  You MUST rsvp if you would like to attend in person, or if you want to try to participate on-line. 

If you plan to attend, please post your response here or call 317-274-7332 and leave a message.

Hope to see you there in some form!

Telling it like it is: The Calgary Police Service Interpretive Centre

In this chapter, author Janet Pieschel explores how museums can change their perception by highlighting and addressing current issues that are important to their respective surrounding communities. Pieschel uses the example of the Calgary Police Service Interpretive Centre (CPSIC) to demonstrate how and exhibit being tied to present issues allows the museum to be a stage for education as well as an agent of social responsibility.

I completely agree with museums being socially responsible and connecting to their community by addressing relevant issues, but I was a little worried by the connection that the author made between reevaluating the role of the museum in the community (p. 176) and receiving funding from corporations. In this chapter, Pieschel quotes Stephen Weil who states that “…museums need to re-evaluate their relevancy to their communities…,” which may be the reason that government and corporate funding is becoming scarce for institutions such as museums and historical sites.

As the author discussed the role of the CPSIC, she explained that the exhibit located within the administration building was set up to give visitors some perspective on the social basis of criminal activity versus displaying weapons, uniforms, and photographs from Calgary’s law enforcement history. The three displays reviewed were: domestic abuse, family violence, and healthy relationships; substance abuse; and juvenile prostitution.

Although there was some discussion on the challenges surrounding museums and social responsibility, Pieschel only discussed issues surrounding fundraising and the role of docents. One this this chapter did make me ponder was: How often do museums tie the content of their exhibits to the present cares and concerns of their surrounding communities? Do they do it because they feel it’s a foundational responsibility that the museum has to the community or because the present economic environment has made it a challenge to function without fitting “social responsibility” into the mission of the museum?

Engaging underserved communities at the Liberty Science Center

The chapter “Liberty Science Center in the United States: A Mission Focused on External Relevance” by Emlyn Koster and Stephen Baumann explores the ways in which one New Jersey science museum has tried to become a socially responsible institution by reaching out to the traditionally underserved members of the community in which the museum is located. The Liberty Science Center has worked toward accomplishing this mission by implementing three unique programs. While each program is different, they all treat community members as partners instead of static receptacles for information.

The Abbott partnership program provides science learning opportunities to urban schools by offering on-site, off-site, and on-line resources. They also provide free visit passes to students so that they can continue their learning experience by bringing their family back to the museum. This program allows community members, especially school aged children, to feel welcome at the Liberty Science Center. It helps to dispel the myth that museums are institutions for the elite and provides an entry point for members of the community who may feel unwelcome due to inherent museum stereotypes.

Another program aims to reduce the acceptance of youth smoking amongst students ages 9 to 17. The museum worked in conjunction with community members to determine that this issue was of concern to local residents. This type of museum community partnership has been explored in other chapters of Looking Reality in the Eye, and it is wonderful to see that any type of museum (whether art, science, natural history, etc.) can create these personal relationships.

The third program that the Liberty Science Center has implemented is “Live from… Cardiac Classroom”. This is a very innovative and technologically driven experience. Students are able to watch an open-heart by-pass surgery taking place live through two way video conference technology. The goals of this program are to expand student’s knowledge of anatomy and physiology, while also highlighting the many different careers opportunities that exist in the medical field. In this way the Liberty Science Center promotes career development in the field of science. Students who may not have known much about the medical field before the program could be encouraged to explore a new career path. The program is also offered free to one-third of the students who attend to make sure that everyone is given an equal opportunity to participate regardless of income.

While these programs provide an excellent overview of the ways in which the Liberty Science Center provides public programming to create a community conscience, I am interested in the ways in which this focus on community may be incorporated into exhibits and gallery spaces? Is community input sought when developing or redesigning exhibits? If the Liberty Science Center wants to remain a relevant figure in the New Jersey community they must work to incorporate this type of social inclusion into all aspects of their institution, not just their public and school programming.

Telling it Like it Is: The Calgary Police Service Interpretive Centre

Janet Pieschel begins this chapter on the Calgary Police Service Interpretive Centre (CPSIC) by describing the need for museums and other cultural institutions to stay relevant to their community by focusing on the issues that concern their visitors. She cites Chris Pinney, who states that one day "all financial institutions and most corporations will, like their European counterparts, eventually have to report their social and environmental impacts along with their economic results (175-76). To me, this statement implies that someday the government will recognize that cultural institutions, like museums, contribute just as much socially to society as corporations contribute financially, and that the need for environmentally-friendly buildings and programs is crucial.

After establishing context, Pieschel then describes the CPSIC. Located inside the Calgary Police Service (CPS) administration building, the CPSIC is a six-thousand-square-foot exhibit and administrative space. CPS management wanted a museum that went beyond uniforms and weapons, and instead wanted to focus on the social factors of crime and change visitor's perspectives on crime. Part of the CPSIC mission is "to instil a respect for police and authority", and this is an especially important for the target audience of school-age children (177).

Pieschel then reviews three of the museum's exhibits. Covering topics such as substance abuse, juvenile prostitution, and domestic abuse and family violence is challenging, and Pieschel acknowledges this while offering the museum's strategy to minimize negative effects for visitors who may have experience with these subjects. One of the most interesting exbits, Dead End Streets, depicted a crack house that museum personnel had seen when they accompanied Calagry police on a tour of such places in the city. The detailed description on page 179 conveys the destructive power of drug use. I can imagine this scene having a profound impact on those who see it, and wonder if such exhibits were created elsewhere, if they might have an effect on high-risk youth.

While I'm sure all museums have numerous challenges to overcome, Pieschel only describes two of the most significant. These are fundraising and the role of docents. Pieschel found that until the museum articulated its social role in the community, it could not gain corporate support. She also found a creative solution the high docent turnover at the museum. She introduced a life-size "robocop" that delivers a consistent message and can deal with the sensitive issues the museum portrays. I'm not sure how well received this "robocop" will convey the message of the museum, but I am sure it will be a memorable addition.

I studied criminology as a undergrad, and have always been fascinated by the motivation and subsequent effects of crime. The CPSIC, in focusing on these topics, can educate kids in a very real way. I can only hope that a museum such as this one will someday open in the United States and continue to educate everyone.

Is Art Good for You?

This chapter, authored by Susan Pointe, describes the evolution of the McMullen Art Gallery at the University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. As Dolly mentioned, the gallery began as a out-of-the-way space frequented primarily by the public, and not its intended audience of hospital patients. To fix this problem, Pointe, gallery staff, and volunteers decided to bring the art to patients, instead of having the art only be available to mobile patients in the gallery.

The Artists-on-the-Wards program used expert, paid staff to visit four patient areas and either help the patients create art or the artist would paint for the patient (118). This project lead to the creation of a "Mural of Hands", "Healing Tiles", and "Healing Ceiling." These projects included the patients in transforming the visual space of the hospital. Patients who participated in these activities reportedly felt less stress and anxiety (119), although Pointe is quick to acknowledge that this program is not art therapy.

With the immense popularity of bringing art to the patients, Pointe wonders if it is really necessary to create exhibits in the gallery space. She feels the true value of the McMullen Art Gallery comes from its outreach, and not the gallery itself. The gallery is not a "collect and conserve" space and exisits to serve hospital patients, so it is not constrained by a strict mission statement. Therefore, Pointe concludes her chapter by wondering if the hospital needs a gallery at all, or if money would be better spent by creating a series of temporary exhibitions
throughout the hospital.

Personally, I think that due to the nature of the building and the fact that many patients can't visit the gallery without assitance, it might serve their needs better to create exhibits on each floor or area that patients can easily enjoy. However, the gallery began as a place for the public to enjoy the art as well. Should the gallery close and exlusively focus on the patients' needs or should continue to exist and serve the needs of a few, and continue to be augmented by the Artists-on-the-Wards program?

How to Heal a Gallery

In her chapter, “Is Art Good for You?” Susan Pointe describes an outreach program undertaken by the McMullen Art Gallery, a space in the middle of the University of Alberta Hospital. The Artists-on-the-Wards program began in 1999 as a pilot project in which visual artists visited adult patients in their rooms and led art-making activities. The program eventually grew to include more wards and more artistic media. As Pointe carefully explains, the Artists-on-the-Wards program is not art therapy (a specialization which requires professional clinical training), but it provides patients with the opportunity to participate in creative experiences and create lasting testimonials to their presence in the hospital.

Pointe is very forthcoming about why the program was conceived: despite the gallery’s generally positive reputation in the art community, no one in the hospital seemed to know the gallery was there. In addition to being bad for the gallery’s visitor numbers, this was also in clear violation of the gallery’s purpose for being. As Pointe writes, “Although the gallery was mandated to serve patients, only 4 per cent of its visitors were hospital patients” (p.115). Meanwhile, “Most hospital staff did not visit the gallery and many did not know why it was there; some had actually never heard of it” (p.115). In response, the gallery staff worked to create appealing and explanatory signage, installed artwork throughout the hospital, opened the gallery for drop-in art-making, and redesigned their feedback cards. Most importantly, they decided to take art to the patients themselves. For Pointe, the challenge in implementing her gallery’s social relevance seemed to lie in the acknowledgement of and rededication to the mission, rather than in arguing against those who disagreed with it. Despite the realistic threat of the hospital choosing to replace the gallery with for-profit ventures, careful planning and execution of new programming seemed to make for relatively smooth sailing.

Although not all strategies in this case study would translate to contexts without patients, Pointe herself acknowledges that some American hospitals (particularly the Shands Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida) had already undertaken artists-on-the-wards programs to positive effect. Similarly, our course reading, “Museopathy: Exploring the healing potential of handling museum objects” (Chatterjee, et al), suggests that positive museum-like experiences in hospitals are not limited to art programming. More broadly, Pointe’s chapter underscores the necessity of making museums know and serve the needs of their audiences.

Negotiating a Sustainable Path: Museums and Societal Therapy

In this chapter by Glenn C. Stutter and Douglas Worts, they discuss the museums role in assessing the needs of the community. They state that “while museums can and should be addressing sustainability through the non-formal education system, they also have a much broader role to play as active facilitators of social change at local and regional levels” (pg. 131).

Many people can relate to viewing sustainability as this large and looming global issue impacting ecosystem health, economic development, and social justice. The authors argue that people need “social therapy” because of the growing divide that has grown between man and nature. This gap continues to widen the more technologically advanced that our society becomes. In order to help combat this human- nature split, “museums can help by encouraging people to become more conscious of critical relationships that link them to nature and to other people” (pg. 137).

This was the goal of The Human Factor exhibit at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum which:

1. Examined the scope and consequences of human activities

2. Identified the industrial worldview as the root of multiple global and regional issues

3. Stressed the importance of restorative economics, choices, and our connection to nature.

Even after highlighting the issues surrounding sustainability, the harsh reality is that it is a complicated and chaotic topic that is out of any one individuals control. Putting visitors face to face with this reality was a challenge because the developers knew that it could illicit an emotional response from visitors. Instead, the authors encourage museums to allow their respective communities to identify their needs, and reflect on the ramifications of their current actions. Basing the presentation of information on a front-end evaluation may cause some museums to feel as if they are relinquishing their authority. Rather, I agree with the authors when they describe how using these surveys can create a bridge between the museum and the community and set the museum up as a place of non-formal learning as well as an avenue for social advocacy. This may be more of a challenge depending on the various exhibits created for various communities, but no matter the subject of the exhibit it is always important to connect the material to the needs and interest of the surrounding community.

A New Approach to Museum Field Trips

Most people, at least I myself, think of school field trips to museums as a one day event where students are led to different gallery spaces to fill out worksheets and participate in programs or activities that usually relate to some aspect of school curriculum that can be tied to the museum’s exhibits. However, in the chapter “Engaging Young Minds and Spirits: The Glenbow Museum School” by Michèle Gallant and Gillian Kydd, a unique approach to museum visits by school groups is presented. In The Museum School, teachers submit proposals to the Glenbow covering any range of topics and formats they wish to explore in partnership with the museum over the course of two weeks to a whole school year. Cost subsidization is offered by business partners to alleviate the burden on schools to provide funding for the program and allow for greater participation. The teachers introduce concepts that will be explored at the museum in the classroom as a first step in the process. Then students and their teacher spend an entire week in the museum using various learning techniques such as observation, critical thinking, and free-choice exploration to expand upon concepts presented in the classroom.

While reading this chapter I created a connection between the design of the Glenbow Museum School and the constructivist learning theory. Gallant and Kydd stressed that students were given time every afternoon to explore exhibits and artifacts of their choice and reflect critically on them by writing or drawing in personal hard cover journals. The students are given the liberty to make choices about what they focus on, and this gives them a sense of ownership in the learning experience. The structure is very much based on principles of the learner creating knowledge for themself. The success of The Museum School program is an excellent case study that outlines the benefits of a constructivist learning environment.

Looking Reality in the Eye is mainly focused on social responsibility and how museums best serve their communities. While the benefits to students are outlined above, I really see the partnership between the museums and their business associates as the way in which this program promotes collaboration in the community. Chevron Canada Resources provides funding for The Glenbow Museum School, and it is only through their support that the program is made possible. These partnerships create important networks of support that help museums to grow and remain a relevant part of the communities they serve.

One line from the chapter that I took note of was, “only by working together were the characters [museum, school, and business partner] able to gain the necessary force to reach their goal” (p. 83). This chapter is really about partnership, and this quote reveals how while individual groups may not have the resources to accomplish their goals, collaboration can be a powerful tool in overcoming obstacles. Building and utilizing community relationships is thus a key characteristic of the socially responsible museum.

The Glenbow Museum School and the Gerund-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named

In their chapter, "Engaging Young Minds and Spirits: The Glenbow Museum School," Michèle Gallant and Gillian Kydd describe their work with field trip groups in the Glenbow Museum's ChevronTexaco Open Minds School Program. In short, teachers submit proposals for long-term student projects, and those that are accepted are then given special access to the museum's material and human resources. Gallant and Kydd identify ownership and time as the two qualities that make their program distinctive; they argue that it is crucial to allow teachers to design their own programs and to allow students the chance to see museums as something other than novelty. According to program evaluation, this program teaches students to think more critically and provides a space for educators to test and develop new approaches to teaching.

For this chapter, my first two questions from my last post (To what extent does the author identify a specific catalyst for a museums' move toward increased social responsibility? What challenges does the author identify in trying to implement "socially relevant missions"?) are mainly related to issues of challenging the status quo. While Gallant and Kydd do not clearly name what prompted the foundation of their program, they strongly imply that its philosophical roots--not just the financial backing for it--are fundamentally important to their sponsors. In terms of implementation, it seems that the Open Minds Program is only limited by the imaginations of their applicants. On both counts, participants in all aspects of the program are simply expected to try something new.

My last question, as before, is which strategies in this case study would translate best to other museum contexts. While Gallant and Kydd point out (see p. 83) that over seventeen other sites have already begun using this model, they do not describe which elements of the program (if not all of them) have been maintained in other contexts. While funding opportunities, school curricula, and museum collections will inevitably vary, it seems that the key ingredients must always be collaboration with community partners and the freedom to teach what "should be part of public education" (p. 82). In Gallant and Kydd's model, these ingredients are what allow students to move beyond their roles as objects-for-engaging into new and exciting opportunities to engage with ideas for themselves.

Chapter 2 - History is as History Does: The Evolution of a Mission-Driven Museum

In Ruth Abram’s article, “History is as History Does: The Evolution of a Mission-Driven Museum” she uses examples from the implementation and continued growth of the Tenement Museum in Manhattan as a way to stress that an institution’s actions are far more important than any other aspect of that museum.

The Tenement Museum uses its building at 97 Orchard Street and the apartments housed within, along with its artifacts, to tell the stories of the entire area’s history and people. It is their firm belief that artifacts should support the stories they are trying to tell, rather than the other way around. They not only look at what the history of the building is, but rather “What this history can do to help improve the world.” They believe that history informs us about what we do and do not want to do. This museum tries to use history as a tool to help shape the future.

In trying to accommodate the wide diversity of their visitors, the Tenement Museum sees it necessary for institutions to employ people of varying socio-economic backgrounds, ethnicities, gender, and histories. They have found that the majority of senior staff members in museums are of European origin. This is because minorities, working class, and immigrant individuals aren’t seeking professions in museums. To alleviate this problem they are working in collaboration with universities to train children in these under exposed groups to study the field. In essence, seeing as there isn’t a plethora of diverse candidates to choose from, they are creating their own.


Questions to contemplate:

• I’m curious to know how many of our blog followers work at an institution that is currently trying to redefine its mission? Does your current or redefined mission focus on the visitor at all? What challenges do you face in trying to incorporate your institution’s mission into all aspects of your particular work?
• For those of you who don’t find giving tours as part of your job, how would you feel if your institution mandated that you begin leading tours? Is there any part of your job that you think would give you an advantage in giving tours? Do you think this would give you a better understanding of your institution’s visitors and their needs?
  
• The following question is in reference to Liz Sevcenko, the vice president for programs at the Tenement Museum (see page 25 of the book). If an individual doesn’t have a personal past or perspective similar to Liz’s, can they learn to insert a “usable past” into their museum’s programming? Can this concept be taught to museum studies majors or incoming museum staff members?

Diversity and Equality in the Glenbow Museum

Last week, I read a chapter of Looking Reality in the Eye that discussed the issues of diversity in museum exhibits. In this chapter, Gerald Conaty and Beth carter discuss the issues in creating an exhibit on the Blackfoot Indians and the challenges that arose due to cultural differences. The Glenbow museum staff made a point to fully include the Blackfoot community in the process of creating this exhibit from start to finish, this included both groups coming together to establish what the goal of the exhibit would be.

As I read the chapter titled "Diversity and Equality in the Glenbow Museum," I was reminded of a discussion that was held at a meeting I attended. Although it started off as a discussion about commemoration and memorialization, we eventually ended up discussing the social responsibility of museums. Even after the exhibit at Glenbow was opened, there were still changes and alterations that were being made. Looking beyond that, the experience of involving the Blackfoot community (versus a committee of academics) in the process of creating the exhibit and making the greater community aware and informed about this particular group of people made me wonder about the social responsibility of museums. In the chapter, the authors state that "the museum should take the opportunity to move away from a safe, neutral position if, by doing so, we could raise awareness and enhance the human rights debate." I though about a question that one of the discussant in my meeting posed in asking "at what point does social responsibility no longer become the museums responsibility?" How socially involved can a museum be without being biased or having a political agenda.

How well would this model work in a situation where there were opposing political and cultural interpretations that were based in fact?

This is not to say that I am against museums as social activists and I appreciate the efforts that the Glenbow museum took to open the Nitsitapiisinni exhibit. I am just curious as to how you think these efforts could be translated into other exhibits that cover diverse communities and possibly controversial issues. I think Conaty and Carter made it a great point to highlight how non-traditional working with diverse communities can be, and how important it is to foster those deep relationships that must surpass most regular business relationships.

"One National Museum's Work to Develop A New Model of National Service" - Joanne DiCosimo

In this chapter, DiCosimo wrote that the purpose of the Canadian Museum of Nature (CMN) is to be a part of a community of people and institutions across Canada that share their purposes, interests, and values. (60) To achieve this goal, the CMN created a strategic plan for 1998-2003 to address three fundamental questions: 1.)Where can the national museum of natural sciences make its greatest contribution? 2.) What is uniquely ours to do? 3.) Where can we be of greatest assistance in furthering CMN's and colleagues' mutual objectives? These three broad questions allowed the CMN to define itself, its mission, and locate possible opportunities for involvement in the community. One of my questions when reading this chapter had to do with the fact that the entire popultion of Canada is the CMN's target audience and the community it seeks to include. I wonder how the museum can appeal to such a varied population while including them in a mission of social responsiblity.

I thought DiCosimo did an excellent job of outline the key points of the CMN's strategic plan and their long-term goals. She made it clear what they were trying to achieve and how each point related to the three major questions. However, when she wrote this article the museum had not yet progressed out of the planning stage. While it was frustrating to not follow these excellent ideas to fruition, it also was a great learning tool to read how a museum creates a strategic plan with a specific goal, in this case community involvement, in mind. I look forward to someday learning of the success of the CMN's strategic plan.

Introduction - Looking Reality in the Eye

Hello all!

My name is Meira and I'll be reading _Looking Reality in the Eye_ this semester. As a public history graduate student with a keen interest in the relationship between museums and social responsiblity, I'm eager to learn more about how different museums addressed this issue. I like the approach of using nine case studies to study development, implementation, and brainstorming of museum policy, exhibitions, and other aspects of museums that seek to create or strengthen the bond between themselves and their communities. I look forward to sharing my thoughts on these topics with you.

National Museums and Social Relevance

As I have been reading Looking Reality in The Eye over the past couple of weeks I have been so interested in the way that different museums have approached the topic of social responsibility. It seems that museums rely on different criteria in defining what a socially relevant museum looks like depending on their location, content, and stakeholders.

I was very interested by the chapter “One National Museum’s Work to Develop a New Model of National Service: A Work in Progress” by Joanne DiCosimo. This chapter focuses on the Canadian Museum of Nature (CMN) and its challenge of developing “a new model of national service” (p 59). This museum has such a unique definition of what it means to be socially responsible and relevant, and I think this stems from the fact that they see themselves mainly as a national museum. The CMN believes their mission should be inclusive of as many citizens as possible. It is so great to see how museums that don’t revolve around indigenous cultures or controversial ideas can also strive to be relevant in their communities. A lot of times I tend to think of socially responsible museums as institutions that are concerned with wrongdoings and errors of the past and how those can be overcome in the future, but this chapter has shown me that any museum, regardless of content, can work towards making a positive impact on their community.

I appreciate that DiCosimo outlines, in detail, the steps the museum has taken thus far to fulfill its social purpose and determine the unique role that CMN should play in the community. She summarizes their strategic planning sessions, community and institutional partnerships that were constructed, as well as the goals and steps to putting their strategic plan in action. I especially like that the museum conducted polls to determine what issues were important to Canadian citizens as it would be impossible to become relevant to a community without seeking their input.

One question that remains in my mind as the CMN continues to look forward and work towards implementing goals and strategies they identified in their strategic plan is how the government may influence their progress? Since the CMN receives federal funding, the government is a looming stakeholder that could derail plans to improve the museum’s social mission if they don’t agree with the steps being taken or feel that they don’t contribute to the ideals upheld by the government. I feel that the CMN needs to take further steps to communicate closely with the Canadian government and make sure they are on board with the strategic plan the museum has created.

The role of the government at the CMN makes me wonder how the CMN's obstacles to achieving social relevance may differ from that of a non-national museum, such as the East Side Tenement Museum discussed in the chapter “History is as History Does: the Evolution of a Mission-driven Museum”? Whatever the challenges I am happy to hear DiCosimo say that this is a work in progress and the work at the CMN is nowhere near done, it is just getting started.

Collaboration: A Dose of Reality at the Glenbow

Since Looking Reality in the Eye deals with a diverse set of case studies, I've tried to keep a few general questions in mind as I read each chapter:

1) To what extent does the author identify a specific catalyst for a museum's move toward increased social responsibility?

2) What challenges does the author identify in trying to implement "socially relevant missions"? (For those who are wondering, I'm quoting straight from the back of the book.)

3) Which strategies in this case study would translate best to other museum contexts?

The first reading I've chosen to blog about is "Our Story in Our Words: Diversity and Equality in the Glenbow Museum" by Gerald T. Conaty and Beth Carter.

One thing I really appreciate about this chapter is its extreme detail. In their discussion of the planning for the Glenbow's Niitsitapiisini exhibit, Conaty and Carter describe the process of community collaboration from beginning to end--including both the triumphs and the frustrations.

The authors are frank about the reasoning for their museum's changes; as with many museums across North America, the Glenbow saw public boycotts and legal action from indigenous groups themselves. (The authors point in particular to The Spirit Sings, a now-infamous exhibit that was timed to coincide with the 1988 Winter Olympics.) In response to such calls for change, museum professionals worked with First Nations communities across Canada to conceive a set of guidelines for better representations of indigenous heritage.

The challenge was, as seems fairly common, in creating true community partnerships. As Conaty and Carter attest, allowing for the equal involvement of museum staff and Blackfoot representatives meant being willing to cede control and adapt to new ways of doing business. At the beginning, they say, "We did not know how, or even if, elements of Blackfoot culture could interact with elements of our museum culture to produce an intelligible result" (p. 47). While many museum professionals have noted the need for input from the groups they aim to represent, it is far easier to consult than it is to collaborate.

Nonetheless, Conaty and Carter provide ample evidence that collaboration is both ethically necessary and intellectually fruitful. Although their particular needs (praying, building deep personal relationships before working together, etc.) are not universal, methods like including community members in planning stages, participating in important community rituals, and holding meetings in neutral spaces all seem reproducible elsewhere.

Last week, our class also read Brenda Trofanenko's discussion of the Glenbow Museum*, which deftly highlights the historical and philosophical biases in museum narrative. In her piece, Trofanenko argues that "The role of the social educator needs to be nurtured into an increased awareness of how and why to look critically at what knowledge is presented and the context in which it is defined" (p. 107). Such an awareness can only come from an honest assessment of existing gaps and preferences in knowledge. However, as Conaty and Carter (as well as Trofanenko) testify, it is no longer sufficient to stop at awareness. After one looks reality in the eye, one is forced to answer to it.

*Trofanenko, B. (2006). The public museum and identity, or: The question of belonging. In Segall, A., Heilman, E. E., and Cherryholmes, C.H.(Eds.), Social studies: The next generation: Researching in the Postmodern (pp. 95-109). New York: Peter Lang.

Why I chose Looking Reality in the Eye...

Greetings all! My name is Krystal Gladden and I am a graduate student in the Museum Education class. I chose this book because after reading a short description of the book, I was interested to see the various case studies that highlighted the manner is which museums could become key players in modern social issues. I liked the fact that instead of a long narrative that was broken down into topical chapters, it presented different elements of social responsibility, in different settings, with different authors. Being a person who loves variety, I was partially drawn to this setup because it allows me to read about the observations and experiences of many scholars and professional in the field. I look forward to the many discussions that we will have!

Introduction- Why I chose to read Looking Reality in the Eye

Hi, my name is Jessica Hufford.  I am really looking forward to discussing this book with my classmates and the museum professionals reading along with us.  This is a great opportunity to get real world feed back from individuals that may have dealt with similar issues presented in the book.  I chose to read this book because it deals directly with the concept that museums have a social responsibility.  I agree whole heartedly.  My second reason is, I really appreciate the format of case studies.  Case studies can demonstrate the application of inacting social responsibility, not just vague theoretical concepts.  I look forward to embarking on this journey with you.  Happy reading.

Introduction - Looking Reality in the Eye

I wanted to introduce myself to fellow bloggers who will be reading Looking Reality in the Eye over the course of this semester and provide some background information as to why I chose to read this particular book. My name is Stephanie, and I am a first year graduate student in the museum studies program. My main interests are in museum education and collections.

I chose to read Looking Reality in the Eye in part because of its unique format. I enjoy the fact that each chapter is devoted to a particular case study which allows the reader to reflect and compare the ways in which some museums are organizing themselves around socially responsible missions. I also wanted to read this book to gain a better understanding of how museums can address issues in their communities and have a positive influence on the people they serve while still retaining an educational focus.

The introduction by Janes and Conaty invites museums to challenge the status quo instead of settling into a routine of what is considered normal or comfortable museum practice. I am interested to see how the museums in the case studies presented throughout the book fulfill this challenge. What barriers may exist that inhibit current museum professionals from reorganizing their museum into a socially responsible institution? How are these barriers overcome? I hope that the case studies presented throughout this book will offer different answers to these questions and highlight some of the educational programs that contribute to a socially responsible mission.

Janes & Conaty ~ Looking Reality In The Eye: Museums and Social Responsibility-Reading Schedule

I'm Dolly, and I'll be working alongside Mandy, Jessica, Krystal, Stephanie, and Meira to get some conversations started about Looking Reality In The Eye. Our team's prospective reading schedule is as follows:

9/14

Introduction (Janes and Conaty)

9/21

History is as History Does: The Evolution of a Mission-driven Museum (Abram)

9/28

Our Story in Our Words: Diversity and Equality in the Glenbow Museum (Conaty and Carter)

10/5

One National Museum's Work to Develop a New Model of National Service: A Work in Progress (DiCosimo)

10/12

Engaging Young Minds and Spirits: The Glenbow Museum School (Gallant and Kidd)

10/19

Liberty Science Center in the United States: A Mission Focused on External Relevance (Koster and Baumann)

10/26

Is Art Good for You? (Pointe)

11/2

Negotiating a Sustainable Path: Museums and Societal Therapy (Sutter and Worts)

11/9

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Human Remains at the Auckland Museum - Te Papa Whakahiku (Tapsell)

11/16

Telling It Like It Is: The Calgary Police Service Interpretive Centre (Pieschel)

N.B.--We have organized chapter assignments so that bloggers are slated to write on topics related to their own interests. However, since all members of our team must meet class-wide posting deadlines of 10/12, 10/26, and 11/9, some chapters may be discussed here ahead of our reading schedule. We invite conversation at all stages of the process!