Transforming Museum Management

Evidence-Based Change through Open Systems Theory

Yuha Jung

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000408263
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Museums must change to illuminate the histories, cultures, and social issues that matter to their local population. Based on a unique longitudinal ethnographic study, Transforming Museum Management illustrates how a traditional art museum attempted to transform into a more inclusive and community-based institution.

Using open systems theory and the Buddhist concept of mutual causality, it examines the museum's internal management structure and culture, programs and exhibitions, and mental models of museum workers. In providing both theoretical and practical foundations to transform management structures, this accessible volume will benefit stakeholders by proposing a new culture and structure to arts institutions, to change practice to be more relevant, diverse, and inclusive.

This book will be an invaluable resource for researchers and advanced students of museum studies, cultural management, arts administration, non-profit management, and organizational studies.

1 Introduction to research and methodology

Concepts of open systems and mutual causality

Open systems theory postulates that organizations cannot exist in isolation from their communities. While the extent of their influence on each other can vary, the interconnection among different parts within an organization, among organizations, and with the larger community affects organizational outputs, survival, long-term goals, and renewal. The actors and parts within an organization always influence each other and those of external elements in a mutual fashion. This differs from unidirectional influence, as in a linear cause-and-effect relationship, where one can identify the cause, its origin, and its exact effect. Rather, within open systems theory, the cause and effect of many different variables are difficult to pinpoint as they affect each other in multi-directional and interdependent ways. This concept of mutual casualty is at the heart of open systems theory as well as that of early Buddhist teachings, making it an ancient concept that emerged from both Western and Eastern philosophies.

Looking at a museum as an open social system, its elements are interdependent and also part of the larger environment. This study examines the whole museum as part of its community rather than examining either the museum separately from its community or one section of the museum, such as its educational or curatorial functions. Therefore, while the Avery Art Museum is the subject of the research, it is not the sole focus because it cannot be understood in isolation from its subsystems (e.g., actors, departments, and culture) or suprasystems (e.g., economic and political systems of the community). Based on three ethnographic moments of 2011, 2015, and 2019, I examined how change happened and did not happen at the Avery. This long-term study is used as an interpretive example to demonstrate how open systems theory and its concept of mutual casualty form a theory of change that is applicable to real-life settings. More in-depth discussion of open systems theory and mutual causality is the topic of Chapter 2.

Research questions

The book aims to provide a theory of change or paradigm shifting model that could lead to sustainable and transformational changes of this museum and many other museums to become more diverse, inclusive, and relevant and become fully integrated parts of their community. More specifically, it examines: (1) how the art museum is connected to or disconnected from its community; (2) how internal workings of the museum, such as management structure and workplace culture, change or stagnate over time; (3) how internal workings and external factors of the museum transformed its primary service provisions and practices; and (4) what are some of the ways the museum can transform to be more relevant and inclusive for the changing demographics, needs, and demands of the larger environment.

To explore these inquiries, I describe a detailed and longitudinal account of an art museum practice from multiple perspectives, including what has changed, what has not changed, and what affected those results. I also theorize an effective change process in a way that can be used by others, presenting a paradigm shifting model in Chapter 6. While this book is not attempting to generalize and provide a model for all museums, it can show how one museum struggled to change by providing various in-depth understandings of the museum internally and externally, and by showing its complicated processes, multiple actors involved, and environmental factors considered. Its detailed and long-term accounts of change descriptions can be helpful for many museums to reflect on their own practices and see how the change model can be applied to their situation. Chapters 3–5 include very detailed and descriptive accounts of the museum’s connection and disconnection to its community; its internal workings, culture, and structural changes over time; and how these elements have affected the museum practices. Chapter 6 will tie these chapters together in creating a museum-specific model of change based on open systems theory and mutual causality of feedback functions.

Significance of the research

The research is significant in several ways: (1) it emphasizes the importance of diversity and inclusion in museums that have been an ongoing and stubborn issue of the sector for decades; (2) it attempts to develop a theory specific for museum governance and administration; (3) it is both theoretical and practical and therefore can be useful to multiple stakeholders; and, lastly, (4) it contributes to the development of research methodology in social anthropology and museum studies.

First, it speaks directly to the pressing issue of museums that are not diverse in their collections, people, and programming and not inclusive in creating their services and hiring their people. This study emphasizes the importance of diversity and inclusion in a broad sense because open systems theory and the concept of mutual causality value the diversity of inputs (e.g., information, data, and resources), inclusive processes of throughputs (e.g., inclusive culture and valuing of different ideas), and diverse outputs (e.g., diverse programs serving different groups of people). In this book, diversity is defined as ways that people are different within organizations (AAM 2018) as well as different ideas they bring in. Additionally, I use it narrowly referring to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, educational levels, and more. While all of these different groups are important, I tend to emphasize race and socioeconomic status in this research as they are the most relevant issues related to the subject museum and for most art museums in the United States and perhaps in different countries. Inclusion is defined as intentional efforts for diverse individuals and their ideas to be reflected in every level and decision-making process of an organization (AAM 2018). Without the intentional practice of including various voices and groups in decision-making processes, diversity of people and differences of ideas will not be properly utilized. This emphasis on diversity and inclusion found in the theory of open systems and mutual casualty resonates with the pressing issue of the current environment of the museum world that it is not inclusive nor relevant enough for changing demographics and socioeconomic and political climates (Anderson 2020; Boucher 2020). I address ways museums can be more inclusive and diverse regarding internal decision-making, museum services, funding sources, staff composition, and audience development.

Second, I explain how museums’ outputs (e.g., exhibitions, programs, and events) are related to their internal structure, workplace culture, and assumptions of the actors, proposing a holistic way to operate museums in relation to many elements both inside and outside the museum. This type of organic, holistic, and more human resources-oriented methods of governing and managing museums have gained attention over the past decades (Bergeron and Tuttle 2013; Lord and Blankenberg 2015; Moore 1994), but there are few in-depth studies conducted illustrating this type of practice in real-life examples with empirical data. Many cultural organizations still follow the mechanical management system that is borrowed from outdated for-profit business practices (Falk and Sheppard 2006; Janes and Sandell 2019; Moore 1994). This book proposes a different theory of museum management, factoring in the unique context of museums as cultural and educational places that are philosophically and structurally different from for-profit businesses. As the book is concerned with holistic governing and management systems through incorporating open systems theory and mutual casualty feedback functions, it will touch on many different areas of operation, including leadership, communication, marketing, and funding.

Third, this book would ideally provide both theoretical and practical foundations for art museums to transform in function and better serve the diverse publics through improved practices. Therefore, this book can benefit multiple stakeholders—scholars, practitioners, and graduate students—by providing an alternative framework to examine museums, proposing a new structure to manage museums, and influencing museums’ practices to focus more on the needs and interests of diverse groups of people. Beyond its contribution to scholarship, the study aims to encourage art museum professionals to understand the connections between their museums and the communities that they serve. This research, although not universally generalizable, can benefit museum directors, trustees, educators, curators, and other museum professionals. While the subject museum is an art museum, the result may be useful for other arts and cultural workers because there are many shared characteristics and challenges among nonprofit cultural and educational organizations.

Lastly, this book contributes to research methodologies for investigating organizations. In organizational anthropology, there has been a relatively recent gap that has formed between organizational behavior and anthropology (Bate 1997). While it is common to think of organizational behavior as a sub-discipline of business administration, it originated from social anthropology (Whyte 1969). My research addresses the organizational behavior and workplace culture of a museum as a social anthropological study using longitudinal ethnography, an underused methodology in examining organizations (Bate 1997). Longitudinal ethnography has rarely, if ever, been used in studying museums. Therefore, this book not only fills the gap between organizational behavior and anthropology but also renews ethnography as a useful methodology to examine organizations that can be used by scholars of other cultural management and museum studies.

Description of the subject museum and its community

The subject museum is the Avery Art Museum, located in Watertown, which is the largest city in the River Cities area. River Cities is a medium-sized metropolitan area composed of several cities and towns in the Midwestern United States. River Cities has an estimated population of less than a half million (all identifiable information has been modified to preserve anonymity and confidentiality). Traditionally, farming and manufacturing have been the dominant industries of the area, although by the early 2000s, its economy has expanded to include healthcare, education, and information technology. About 20% of the population holds a bachelor’s degree or higher. Study participants described the River Cities as largely a blue-collar community.

The Avery Family Foundation, established by an affluent family, donated about a third of a $45 million construction project. The museum relocated downtown in a new building with a new name in the mid-2000s. While these changes gave the museum a different identity, its precursor was the municipal art gallery established in the 1920s. This shows a long history and existence of this museum in its community. Prior to its move to downtown, the city of Watertown provided the museum’s funding and hired its employees. When the museum became the Avery in its new location with its new identity, the city agreed to provide about 30% of the museum’s annual operating budget for a set period of time.

The Avery is a medium-sized art museum. While the size of the building is quite large, approximately 120,000 square feet, the museum employed only 17 full-time staff members and 4 part-time staff members along with a number of volunteers, docents, and interns in 2019. The staff size virtually stayed the same having 16 full-time staff members and 5 part-time staff members in 2011. The annual operating budget was about $2 million in 2011 and increased to be more than $3 million by 2019. More than a half of the museum space is dedicated to education, including studios, library, children’s gallery, auditorium, store, and lobby. The museum mostly collected American, European, Caribbean, Central American, and Asian arts. After the move, its targeted areas expanded from serving only Watertown to include the greater River Cities area. With its new modern building downtown opened to the public in the middle of the 2000s, the museum had been operating as a “new” organization for several years when I first visited it.

Rationale for selecting the Avery as the research site

There were three reasons for choosing the Avery. First, with the Avery, I could tell a story of a relatively smaller art museum that has a homogeneous rather than diverse population. Many published studies in the museum field highlight best practices of large and better-known museums in highly populated metropolitan areas. My experiences in professional and academic conferences confirm that museum research tends to focus on museums that are larger and more successful with substantial financial and human resources. Much less is known about how small- to medium-sized museums with limited funding and human resources are relevant and active in their communities. According to a benchmarking report by the Association of Art Museum Directors (2018), 40% of museums surveyed reported having less than $5 million for its operating budget. The Avery had less than $4 million operating budget in 2019 so it belongs in this smallest budget size category in this report. An extreme example of a large museum is the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which spent over $492 million in the 2018 fiscal year (2019). Many smaller museums are often located in more homogenous areas, facing characteristic challenges in connecting with their communities and providing meaningful experiences for them, often requiring a distinctive type of museum practice that is drastically different from running a large, better funded, and tourist-attracting museum. I chose the Avery as a chance to understand the challenges and practices of smaller museums in the field of museum studies.

Second, I selected the Avery because I had never visited the museum or its geographical region prior to data collection. I thought I would see such a museum and community with fresher eyes than examining a museum that I was familiar with. Since I had never visited the museum or its region prior to commencement of the first study in 2011, I could be more impartial in understanding the Avery and therefore could include as many diverse views as possible from participants, rather than projecting my own view. I became much more familiar with the museum and its region as I visited the area two more times, although I felt out of place in most places in River Cities even during my most recent visit in 2019 due to my racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. Nevertheless, I had assumptions and biases about the Midwest before I started collecting data, which I explain in the “Limitations of the methods and methodology” section below.

This last point may be the most important one, making...