Why I picked it up: I'm pretty focused on what impact arts and culture has on individuals and communities. So I'll look at any study that examines long-term arts engagement and civic engagement to see if there is any reliable evidence. This new study was only released last week.

What you need to know: Researchers from the University of Lincoln and the University of Kent (UK) wanted to test the hypothesis that arts engagement generates more prosocial cooperation, thus yielding significant societal benefits. They used the Understanding Society sample, which is longitudinal and, crucially, a representative sample of the UK population. With n = 30,476, they can control for a host of sociodemographic factors.

Their questions boiled down to:

1 - Is there a connection between arts engagement and prosocial behavior?
2 - Does that connection still exist when sociodemographic and personality variables are controlled? That is, when the capacity for prosocial behavior and for arts engagement is accounted for.
3 - Is this connection distinctive, or are there other things that similarly affect prosocial behavior?
4 - Does arts engagement create short-term effects, or is it cumulative?

Their results were pretty definitive.

First, yes, no question. Engagement in the arts was one of the strongest predictors of charitable giving and volunteering even stronger than most socio-demographic variables. And when the socio-demographic variables that also strongly affected prosocial behaviors were controlled for (e.g., education, income), arts engagement was the strongest predictor at all levels. So while low-income individuals may generally have lower capacity to engage in the arts and/or engage in prosocial behavior, those that do engage in the arts still have greater prosocial behavior than those who do not. And while high-income individuals may have greater capacity to engage in the arts and/or prosocial behavior, the same rule holds depending on whether they actually do engage.

The results also suggest that the effect is cumulative. The longer individuals engage with the arts, the more prosocial they became. Or, in other words, one museum visit isn't going to make anyone significantly more prosocial. It takes many visits, over years.

They summed up their conclusions in three points:

1 - Arts have an essential role in prosocial behavior, benefiting society.
2 - Evidence indicates that there are significant social and economic gains for investing in the arts.
3 - The most effective investments in the arts are likely those that make arts engagement more widely available across the socio-economic spectrum.


Implications for museums: This is a solid study, using a well-respected longitudinal survey, that should be helpful for making a case to both donors and potential community partners that arts organizations, including museums, can deliver significant impact that is far-reaching.

And the research makes sense to me, as the findings are similar to my own about  museum-going and civic engagement: museum-goers are more likely to be active in their communities. I'm mindful, however, that we have to be careful about making judgments about those who are not engaged, and be sensitive about capacity to engage. (See my review of American Generosity for my first thinking about this; you'll see me explore it more in the coming weeks on The Data Museum as well.) Additionally, we need to consider why arts engagement yields these prosocial effects. 


Read or skip? Probably skip. But keep the citation handy for approaching community partners to extend reach, and for grant proposals that focus on community and/or impact. The article is short, and most of the method and results sections can be skipped … if you want to quote from it in a grant, head to the summary at the end.


Full citation:  Van de Vyver, Julie, and Abrams, Dominic. "The Arts as a Catalyst for Human Prosociality and Cooperation." Social Psychological and Personality Science. August 2, 2017.












Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: In my research, I am seeing a high degree of correlation between avid museum-going and community engagement. That is, people who go to museums regularly tend to be more deeply connected with, concerned about, interested in, and involved with their community.

So learning more about attachment to place (or, as I'm reading it, community), makes sense. What are the theoretical underpinnings of place attachment?

Six interesting concepts:

1 - Relationship with community is much like an interpersonal relationship: the more supportive it is, the tighter the bond. Thus, the more a community supports its people, the more people are closely connected to that community (Scannell and Gifford).

• My response: so the more you do to support your community, the more your community will value your museum. (This seems obvious!)

2 - Having a strong connection with place is associated with greater well-being (Gustafson).

• My response: likely because of the social engagement aspects. This seems like fertile ground for museums.

3 - Interest in the past is a better predictor of active attachment to a place than length of residence … and mobile individuals who connect with their communities often use history to jumpstart that connection (Lewicka).

• My response: history museums take note! You can do something with this!

4 -  Concept #3 may be because while some long-term residents are "rooted in place" by choice, and very active/attached, more long-term residents are "tied to place" by default, with low levels of engagement (Gustafson).

• My response: I've seen this in my data as well, and since many museum-goers tend to be interested in the past, my data thus suggests that museum-going is a better predictor of active attachment than length of residence.

5 - Place attachment happens across three dimensions: emotional bonds; cognitive aspects of memory, knowledge, meaning, and understanding; and behaviors to protect, preserve, and defend (Mihaylov & Perkins).

• My response: Interesting. When I ask museum-goers about the value of museums in their life, they speak in emotional ways about memory, knowledge, and understanding. And museums are protectors and preservers. So the language here is consistent with the language of museums … at least among avid museum-goers.

6 - "At the heart of any attachment is a story" (Rishbeth).

• My response: Of course. That's why I see museum-goers bring their own stories to meaningful museum experiences, or responding to the stories museums tell. As those stories intersect, that develops another story of the experience itself. Rishbeth talks about these three types of stories in her introduction, and I see them in my data as well.

Read or skip? If your job is community engagement, or it is a concerted focus of your work, you should pick it up. In particular, pay attention to the first five chapters, as well as chapters 8 and 12. Those are where I found the most food for thought. 

Otherwise, skip. While I am finding the theory very helpful for supporting the trends I see in my research from the past year, for most museum professionals, this isn't as necessary on a day-to-day basis. As I look at the intersection of museums and civic engagement more closely, you'll likely see me refer to this volume again on The Data Museum in the coming months, so I have it covered for you.

Full citation:  Manzo, Lynne C., and Devine-Wright, Patrick (eds.). Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods, and Applications. New York: Routledge, 2014.



Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: It is a rigorous look, on a neighborhood basis, to determine if the presence of culture within a neighborhood enhances social wellbeing and neighborhood health. It's all about impact! Of course I picked it up!

What the researchers were looking for: Two key questions shaped their research:
1.  "What aspects of the city's neighborhood ecology are associated with concentrations of cultural resources," and
2.  "How is the presence of cultural resources, in turn, related to other aspects of social wellbeing?"

Two concepts come out of this that need examining:

1. Social Wellbeing. Looking beyond "narrow economic standards" of poverty and income to  include "security, health, education, social connection," etc. As Harvard professor Amartya Sen says, it is "the freedom to lead lives they have reason to value." There are ten dimensions of social wellbeing they identified:
   1. Economic wellbeing
   2. Housing burden
   3. Ethnic and economic diversity
   4. Health access
   5. Health
   6. School effectiveness
   7. Security
   8. Environmental amenities
   9. Social connection
   10. Cultural assets  
2. Neighborhood ecology. The idea that everything is connected as part of a broader "neighborhood cultural ecosystem." This implies that arts and culture are a part of that ecosystem, and contribute to the health of a neighborhood's ecology, but acknowledges that the ecology approach makes it difficult to exactly measure any one factor's impact.

The researchers note early that the ecology of a neighborhood "exerts a powerful effect on the wellbeing of its residents," especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods. This implies an understanding that an individual's social wellbeing is influenced by a neighborhood's ecology, but also that a neighborhood's ecology is healthier when its individuals have a higher degree of social wellbeing. The two things are closely intertwined and highly reliant on each other.

What they found: Economic standing, race, and ethnicity are the most significant influences on social wellbeing, with low-income neighborhoods, and those with higher percentages of African American or Hispanic residents, having lower social wellbeing and poorer neighborhood ecologies. Economic wellbeing was, overall, the strongest variable towards social wellbeing as it affects a number of other measures in many ways.

But when other factors are controlled for, culture appears to have a positive impact on neighborhood health, particularly in low-income neighborhoods. For example, low income neighborhoods with relatively high cultural amenities also had lower levels of obesity, serious crime, and investigations of child abuse, and increased rates of children scoring higher on standardized tests. There was also "spillover," in that residents in those neighborhoods that don't participate in culture still benefited.

But does culture itself increase social wellbeing? Their ultimate answer was "yes, but …" with notes about methodological challenges. Point is, they rigorously used the best data available, but that doesn't mean data collection across all potential variables couldn't be improved. And for these reasons, they say that culture predicts wellbeing, but they cannot say that culture causes it. Healthier neighborhood ecosystems, which include access to culture, have greater social wellbeing because those neighborhoods have more opportunities for social connection … and culture supports that rather well.

So while as a matter of policy it makes sense to focus on economic wellbeing to address social wellbeing challenges, there is also room for what are likely cost-effective programs that may not directly address economic wellbeing, but have meaningful, and even outsized, impact when it comes to individual social wellbeing and the health of neighborhood ecologies. This can include things like planting trees, greater access to prenatal care, and, of course, culture.

My take: What I find most interesting is the interplay between individual social wellbeing and a neighborhood's ecology. I like how they framed it that way, as it gives me a framework for trends I see in my data as well.

As you will see in the coming months, as I release major research on The Data Museum, individuals who are highly connected to, and engaged, with their community tend to be museum-goers and cultural consumers. Thus, we could reason that if we can boost cultural engagement through museums, those new audiences may be open to a greater degree of connection to, and engagement with, their community, thus improving a community's ecology as well as increasing individual social wellbeing.

And, indeed, my research indicates there is a desire for more community connection among some segments of the population that do not visit museums regularly (or, perhaps, at all). Work can be done here. Really good work. And by increasing access to all ten of the dimensions of social wellbeing, including culture, the long-term outcomes can be tremendous.

The researchers also mentioned a tension between the intrinsic value of culture and its "instrumental influence on other social factors." I have to confess, I have always been thoroughly perplexed by this. One doesn't preclude the other. We can value culture for its own sake while recognizing its broader impact. Just because we find a place of natural beauty that is good for our souls doesn't mean that we can't recognize that that place also has positive instrumental influences on us and our society. So what is culture's problem with this? And, pragmatically, let's be honest. There are some individuals who value that broader impact more than intrinsic one, especially in positions of influence. Fine. Let's find evidence of that broader, more instrumental impact, and share it.

Implications for museums: The researchers didn't discuss museums specifically, but the implication is that if museums want to deliver true, lasting impact, they should consider it via:

1. Individual social wellbeing. On an individual level, how do they make a difference in lives? How do they do this through education and social interaction? Through identity?
2. Neighborhood ecology. As a place of social interaction, education, and identity, how do they boost the health of a community?

Neither of these in any way take away from our core missions of art, history, or science (or some mix thereof), but instead values what those things accomplish in individuals and neighborhoods … when they are done well.

But there is, buried in the report, a call to action. They note that since culture is spread unevenly, with lower-income neighborhoods having fewer resources, it means that "privilege [is] generating more privilege" in wealthier ones. A case right there to make our work more accessible in neighborhoods that are under-served, and delivering out-sized impact when we do so. And let's be practical about it and go to where they are (and not expect them to come to us).

Read or skip? This research is important, so yes, you should read their summary, which gives you their overview in six pages. Feel free to skip the longer report unless you have a particular reason to dig in.

A note on their methodology: The project had three phases:

1. Documenting "cultural ecosystems" on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis in New York City
2. Rigorously assessing other factors that contribute to social wellbeing
3. Examining how culture affects wellbeing on a grassroots, neighborhood level, including controlling for SES (socio-economic status)

I read through their methodology thoroughly. Every research project, even well-funded ones, runs into roadblocks. This one did too. The authors shared their rationale for how they addressed data gaps and other challenges, and they pointed out "one cannot collect data that do not exist." Overall, their methodology seemed entirely reasonable to me, though I have some questions about their cultural participation assumptions (I think their method likely undercounted participation). No red flags.

Full citation: Mark J. Stern and Susan C. Seifert. "The Social Wellbeing of New York City's Neighborhoods: The Contribution of Culture and the Arts." Research report published by the University of Pennsylvania Social Impact and the Arts Project. Released March 2017.

See also "Culture and Social Wellbeing in New York City: Highlights of a Two-Year Research Project" for their excellent summary.
​

Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Honestly, this report confused me a bit.

I picked it up because I thought it would be about economic impact and the creative sector. It wasn't.

Then, the first half (the findings), had me prepared to write a review all about, essentially, the death of the chamber of commerce (and implications for communities and even museums, if you bear with me).

But then the second half (case studies) focused on two museum-type organizations that were doing great community work, really serving as creative hubs and putting the findings into practice.

I'm not sure I can totally reconcile the two, as my responses are so different. But here goes.

Note: this report focuses on Creative Hubs in the United Kingdom.

Part 1: The Findings

Fundamentally, how do communities support creativity, individual entrepreneurship, and thinking? How do they provide infrastructure, resources,  nuts-and-bolts advice, and places for what the authors called "structured serendipity" and "curating happenstance" (two phrases I love, by the way; I sometimes see those ideas coming from museum-goers in my research as well).

This report focused on "creative hubs" as relatively new, loose organizations that address those needs, as places that bring together "diverse talents, disciplines, and skills to intensify innovation … places that provide a space for work, participation, and consumption" (p. 7). They are physical places and/or networks, but essentially small communities that incubate small businesses, help grow creative industries, and make places better.

In the UK, three emerging factors contributed to the development of hubs:

1. Labor market shifts towards sole proprietorships … or what we might term free-lancers (even, to some extent, the gig economy)
2. Persistent growth in culture and creative industries (backed up by UK data)
3. Each new hub responding to local conditions, making each unique, developed in practice (and thus not necessarily planned); there is no one model hub

For a hub to succeed, however, it has to become embedded in local culture, and sustained by mutual respect with their audiences as well as a mutual relationship. That is, individuals benefit from, participate, and also contribute to them. They also have to be generally flexible, loose organizations that meet rather wide-ranging needs (as their definition conveys).

As I read these findings, however, I kept thinking about chambers of commerce. In a way, these creative hubs are becoming a nimble, flexible, relevant 21st-century chamber of commerce. Let me explain (and I'll bring in a museum hook).

When I worked within museums, I found the local chamber of commerce to be only somewhat useful. In the 11+ years I've been an audience researcher, I have found them completely irrelevant. Local chambers have failed me … and I suspect a lot of others. They feel creaky and stuck in the 80s, to be honest. Yet the creative hubs described in this report are very appealing to me.

So if I were to create the 21st-century chamber of commerce, it would actually look a lot like these creative hubs. Dynamic co-working spaces with innovative programs to stimulate the mind, creativity, and innovation. Maker spaces and pots of tea. Meaningful social programming that helps me, and others, tackle community issues. Practical services that help me deal with the nuts-and-bolts of running my practice, so I can focus on the things that matter. I don't want to go to a "mixer" to network, but I do want to be in a mutually supportive environment. And I suspect there is a growing need for that environment that goes right back to those labor market and industry shifts the UK, and the US, is experiencing. 

I also think museums can be a vital part of new creative hubs in the US. The intellectual stimulation, the creative and technical inspiration, are all things that museums can excel at.  Additionally, my data and research keeps reinforcing that community engagement and museums are deeply intertwined, so these creative hubs can be beneficial to museums. And museums can better support their community. And museums can actually be these creative hubs.

Which brings me to the case studies.


Part 2: The Case Studies

After I read the findings part of this report, I was tempted to just barely scan the case studies and set the report aside.

That didn't happen.

The first main case study was for the Site Gallery in Sheffield. And to be honest, the programming is what I would expect of any community-focused art museum, from classes to exhibits to lectures to teen programs (such as those that Mary Ellen Munley has studied in her excellent Room to Rise).

What was most interesting, however, was seeing its programming discussed by non-museum researchers, using language that clearly values the types of outcomes and impacts that I hear from museum-goers in my work. The ability of museums (in this case, art) to connect. Transform. Relax. Escape. Create. A potent reminder that these are important outcomes that we need to try to measure, even when it's hard. And that these outcomes matter.

For the Site Gallery, it meant deep integration with their community: Sheffield. Nimble, savvy thinking, and responding to needs … in ways only they could. The story was similar for Birmingham Open Media.  Interestingly, however, the third case study, FuseBox in Brighton, was more of the new chamber of commerce model that the first part of the report had me envisioning.


Read or skip? This is actually hard to answer. Reading the findings, I would have said a "skip, I've got this covered for you." But I did an about-face when two of the three main case studies described organizations that look a lot like art museums (and, to be honest, there is no reason a science center or history museum couldn't do likewise).

So if your community is crying out for a creative hub, and you want to deeply integrate your museum in your community … read this. It could give you the inspiration to pursue this for your community, in ways that your community needs and that further your missions.

If all of this sounds nice, but nothing else. Then skip. It isn't for you and your museum. 
​

Full citation: "Creative Hubs: Understanding the New Economy." Research report published by the British Council and City University of London. Released 2016.
Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Paying for news. What on earth does that have to do with museums? And membership? Bear with me. Since museum members often purchase membership for the benefits … the product … it is a lot like purchasing a subscription. If the content isn't there, they won't join or renew. I suspect there may be takeaways for museum membership programs. So I dug into the American Press Institute's report.

Note: I did not focus on where they go to find news (especially the digital vs. print argument), but instead on why people do (or do not) commit to a subscription.

What you need to know: News subscribers are paying for (and renewing for) quality content. Poor content = low retention rates. Thus, if your museum membership program has low retention rates, the problem is likely your content, not your membership program. (Or, if a children's museum, they really did age out … but children's museums should still be seeing renewals while children are young.)

The Nitty Gritty: First, take these numbers with a grain of salt, as I think they skew rather high (for why, see below for my rambling note on data source/methodology). That being said …

The researchers divided their sample into three rough categories:

• Subscribers (53% of adults)
• News "seekers" (24% of adults)
• News "bumpers" (23% of adults; that is, people who "bump" into the news)

It doesn't appear that this research had a fourth category, those that just don't engage with/care about the news at all. Not even as "bumpers."

While rates of museum membership and visitation are nothing like this, I think we can draw conclusions if we think of members as "subscribers," casual visitors as "news seekers," and non-visitors as "bumpers." For this purpose, however, we should also mentally think of that potential fourth category, perhaps the "disengaged," which would likely be a third-to-half of a sample and include individuals who just never think about museums at all. (Sorry to discourage you, but better to be realistic.)

First, the subscribers. What motivates them? Primarily, a belief that the news is important to be an informed, better citizen. These words, as well as their cousin "knowledgeable," come up a fair amount in my research when I ask museum-goers why they visit museums.  So a parallel is there (even if more people find the news more useful to this outcome than museums).

Additionally, a fair number of news subscribers want to support quality journalism … particularly younger adults as a third of subscribers under 50 cited this (versus only a quarter of those 50 or older).

When it comes to what news organizations they support, there are three reasons (in descending order):

1. Content: the publication excels in their coverage
2. Friends and family subscribe
3. A response to discount promotions

I suspect it is the same for museum members. If the content the museum is sharing doesn't engage them (or their children), it doesn't matter who else joins or what promotions are being offered. The content has to be there.

Essentially confirming the last point, they found that the majority of subscribers felt that the news was a good value, and that "the value people put on the news they pay for is a reflection of attitude, not other attributes." I agree, and I suspect museum members do too … dropping membership when it is no longer producing that same value for them or their families.

And then there is sharing the news. This was interesting.

Younger adults subscribers are more likely to feel that being informed gives them something to discuss with family and friends, both in real life and on social media. To be honest, aside from the in-museum experience, we don't spend a whole lot of time focusing on this in museums. How do museum visitors talk about their visits with others in their daily lives?

For this study, however, the research shed more light on social media patterns. News subscribers (of all ages) are more likely to share news content. This makes sense on a few levels:

1. By paying, they likely feel a greater sense of ownership
2. Since the news is more important to them, it likely is more important to their friends/family, so they feel more confidence that others wish to see those stories
3. Payers are more likely to find news sources very or completely reliable than non-payers

They went on to say:

"So contrary to discounting social media as part of a subscription strategy, the opposite may be true. Engaging with one’s most loyal consumers on social media, the data suggests, is an important way of expanding one’s audience by having loyal users share and endorse a publisher’s content. In effect, publications should work hard to empower their subscribers on social media to become their ambassadors and marketers."

I suspect the above is true for museum members (which suggests prioritizing content-driven social media in shareable ways is a good priority to have … but you probably already knew that).

Now, the non-subscribers. Bottom line, the news isn't as important to them. Some seek out free sources (and don't feel a need to pay because they can find enough for free to suit their needs). Others don't seek it out at all (and I think this is a bigger percentage of the population than the research suggests, see my rambling note on data source/methodology for why).

To some degree, age also matters, with non-subscribers 18 - 34 twice as likely as those 65 and older to say they are not interested in the news (I wouldn't have categorized these as "bumpers," but as the "disengaged").

But those "bumpers …." what does interest them? My read of the data is that content that is about them. They are far less interested in national or international news, but compared with news seekers they are more interested in news about their hobbies, lifestyle, and interests. A representation of narrower, more personal interests that I see in my research as well, especially in terms of more extrinsic learning motivations and lower levels of engagement with the world among those who don't visit museums at all (or only very rarely). Reaching them, when it comes to the news, seems to be primarily by word-of-mouth, and I bet it is no different when it comes to museums and those with limited intrinsic motivations to learn.

Implications:  The report makes the case for specialization and expertise. That providing great content is key to engaging the audience … and making them subscribers. This brings a few thoughts to mind:

1. The focus on content is something museums need to take to heart. If your return visitation and/or membership numbers are lagging, the problem is likely your content … not your membership program itself.
2. Reports of the death of expertise may be overblown. While there is merit to the worries about who takes fake news seriously, a sizable part of the population does still care about expertise. Some of them are even willing to pay for it. (Additionally, only a small percentage of non-payers cited lack of trust as a reason for not subscribing.) I suspect that it isn't that more people have less trust in expertise than in the past, but that not many people cared in the first place (and now we know). My concern? The part of the population that values expertise may be smaller than we would like … and reaching those that don't care will continue to be a problem, both for news organizations and for museums.
3. And finally, this research fits in rather nicely to new models I am creating about intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivations for learning, and how that relates to engagement with the broader world and museum-going. More on that will be released over the coming months on The Data Museum.

Read or skip? Skip. I covered what you need.

A rambling note on data source/methodology: API partnered with the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. A very reputable source for research and top-notch methodology.

That being said, there are two things to keep in mind.

1. False positives. In this case, that's when people over-report news engagement because they want to present a more positive image than reality supports. For example, someone who was once a news subscriber might report that they are currently a subscriber. Or someone who sees occasional news stories in their Facebook feed might report that they are a news "seeker," even though their actual behavior is more like a "bumper." And then there are those who really don't pay attention at all unless it is completely unavoidable. Which brings me to my second point.
2. Almost all national surveys have what I call a "blind spot:" a good-sized chunk of individuals that surveys never reach. (I'd guess 25 - 35% of the population. But that's a guess, mind you.) These individuals don't carefully look at their mail (and direct mail surveys), don't respond to random-dial surveys, and don't come across online intercept surveys. And these individuals are often of lower socio-economic status (SES) and/or educational attainment. Even when surveys weight results by SES and educational attainment, it means they are weighting it with individuals that a survey reached AND were willing to complete the survey. That doesn't necessarily make them representative of that demographic segment. So with the exception of the US Census, take all national surveys, including mine, with a grain of salt. It probably skews towards a more engaged population than exists in real life.

Full citation:  American Press Institute. "Paying for News: Why people subscribe and what it says about the future of journalism." Published May 2, 2017.
​
Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Big question for museums: What happens when some of the key values we hold dear … community, empathy, understanding … are considered old-fashioned relics among the broader population?

Why I picked it up: I like David Brooks. I don't agree with him on everything (especially politics), but I understand why he has those viewpoints because he is rational. This book, however, isn't political at all, but instead an assessment of society shifts that are rather insightful. I didn't approach this book as a "museum" book, but I did wonder if he had any takeaways that matter to museums

So … does he have takeaways for museums? Short answer, yes. Though you have to hunt for them.

Overall premise of book: Brooks begins by talking about "resume virtues," such as skills for careers and external success, versus "eulogy virtues," which are about character and relationships. In our society, he suggests we are overly focused on the resume virtues, and that it has been at the expense of the eulogy virtues. The results has been a "slip into self-satisfied moral mediocrity."

The shift has taken place largely in post-WWII America, with a mindset that has gone from "nobody's better than me, but I'm no better than anyone else" to "I'm pretty special."

How? He blames the Greatest Generation, which gave us rampant consumerism, a new ethos of the self, and the self-esteem movement. Now, he acknowledges that these are not all bad things (the self-esteem movement helped many people, for example), but it has played out in ways that has swung the pendulum too far towards narcissism, a desire for fame, and individualism at the expense of common good. This also leads to entrenched opinions and attitudes and an inability to acknowledge when we are wrong (does this sound familiar in today's society?).

We need to rebalance. To gain humility. An old-fashioned concept that is his recurring theme.

But what does that mean to him? Brooks takes issue with the idea that individuals should find themselves, follow their passions, set personal goals, and figure out how to get there. That is the life map of the individually autonomous. Reality requires something different. Instead, he suggests that we allow our life and experience to guide us to work to solve problems and needs. It is a shifting of personal mission from furthering oneself to finding a vocation. A vocation isn't chosen, like a career, but answering a call. Stumbling upon a need and being uniquely capable of serving it.

My museum take: When Brooks talks about finding a vocation, and serving it, lights were going off in my head for museums. I don't use these words when I advise museum boards and staffs, but the message is the same. Museums should not be striving to fulfill institutional goals because they simply can. Their work has to mean something to audiences. Otherwise it is going to spin wheels, not drive impact. How do museums find their vocation by applying their strengths to fulfill needs that real people have in real life?

But Brooks's message also resonated personally, in my own career. I never set out to be the museum-audience-data researcher/source/guru. I answered a calling that I saw when I was a museum director myself. And here is where I think the true message of the book lies. Serving a calling doesn't mean doing something that, individually, we hate. It means taking what we enjoy, want to do, and are good at, and matching it and growing it to meet society's needs.  It's something I, in retrospect, did. And it is something that I will strive to inculcate in my own children.

So what is the role of museums in helping develop individual interests in a way that is balanced by our ability to develop cognitive empathy, understanding, and the broadening of minds? How do we help the individual reconcile their own desires with the common good? Is that a role that, as a field, museums should play? I'd argue yes, as museums already play a formative role for avid museum-goers.

In the book, Brooks underscores the need for this reconciliation of individual desires and common good when he examines Google ngrams (which measure word usage over time across media and publication dates). Since the beginning of the 20th century, words like "community," "character," "gratitude," and "kindness" have dropped dramatically.

What struck me was that these words, which apparently are old-school since their usage has dropped so precipitously, are that they are ideas that we talk about in our work a lot. Especially community. But character, gratitude, and kindness are similar to empathy and understanding, two other words we are increasingly using to describe our work. In a world that focuses so much on the self, do these forces of humility, of intrinsic kindness, that we embrace make us a relic to those who are more extrinsically motivated in their lives?

When we talk about community and understanding, does it basically make most people check out? If so, how do we work towards it without articulating it? To drive change that isn't asked for but we believe is right as it leads to humility, kindness, and a better society? What would that look like? Why would people care about it? How can we do it more effectively?

And how depressing is it that we, as a society, don't talk about kindness anymore?

Read or skip? It depends. If you want a book that is hugely applicable for museums, skip. I think I pulled that out for you. But if you want a well-written, deeply thoughtful (and non-political) book about values, morality, and American society, yes, read it. I enjoyed it. (BTW, the bulk of the book is a series of mini-biographies of individuals who exemplified different eulogy virtues. 300+ pages of pontificating on values would have been unreadable. The biographies made it human.)
​
Full citation: Brooks, David. The Road to Character. New York: Random House, 2015.

Why I picked it up: Museum-goers tend to be readers, but are all readers museum-goers? Probably not. I don't expect this report to tell me why some readers don't visit museums, but it will likely tell me a bit more about information consumption. And how a very analog device is surviving in a digital world.

Source: Pew Research Center. I trust them and their methodology.

Fast facts:
​

• 3/4 of Americans said they read a book in the previous year (for any reason). This is a lot higher than the 55% reported by the NEA in their 2012 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA), but there is a reason why: SPPA asked about pleasure reading, outside of work/school. Thus, we can assume about half of Americans read at least one/book year for pleasure, and an additional quarter of Americans read out of necessity.
• The median number of books read by all Americans is 4.
• Only 6% of Americans are exclusively digital readers. Think young adults do it more? Nope. 6% as well. But smartphone reading is most popular with non-whites, those with lower education.
• Most likely to read? College graduates, those with higher incomes, women, and young adults (many of whom are in school).
• Why read? Among readers:
  • 84% to research a specific topic of interest (decreasing rates as people get older)
  • 82% to keep up with current events (age not a factor)
  • 80% for pleasure (age not a factor)
  • 57% for work or school (age very much a factor)

Implications for museums: People still look to certain types of media for information, and books are a key one, with 4/5 of readers turning to books (among other sources) to research specific topics - that is 60% of all Americans.

Of course, in our world of alternative facts and fake news, the question is will that be a boon, or challenge, for books (and libraries) … and for museums. I'll be curious how this data may shift over the next few years, as they resample.

Additionally, signs are that we are shifting out of a period where early prognostications suggested that everything that could be digitized, would be, and that digital was better. Now, there is a growing realization that analog and digital resources work well together to provide individuals with what they need in the format that works best for that need. Sometimes that's digital (collections databases, blogs, etc.). Sometimes that's analog (long-form reading).

Overall, I think that is good news for museums, which are, generally, rather analog places one visits for real-life experiences. Digital programming extends a museum's potential reach, certainly, but doesn’t serve the same function as an actual visit. Nor should we expect it to. They serve different purposes and needs. (Though all this may change when VR gets really good and overcomes some of its inherent flaws.)

Read or skip? Skip. I'll keep following what Pew releases and update as needed. Though if you are really interested, it only takes about 15 minutes to read.

Full citation:  "Book Reading 2016." Research report published by Pew Research Center. Released September 2016.

Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Quick take: I found this book fascinating. Incredibly useful for the complexity of how generosity happens; the latter 2/3 of the book were fantastic. The first third, however, was riddled with data errors that I suspect were due to poor copy-editing. Finally, the whole thing didn't need to be a book, but a great info-graphic with a supporting 30-page report.

Fortunately, I dug through it, and am giving you the best bits. By the end of the book, the research had "snapped" into a virtual Topography of Giving in my head. I know that sounds weird (and I am weird). Now that I have this topography in my head, however, I'm trying to see how it maps against museum-going and giving to museums. Thus, this is a long, denser review. But persevere! It will still take you far less time than reading the book, and the part about "how and why people give" (below) is worth it.


Why I picked it up: I am curious about why people make financial contributions to charities, and to museums in particular. And also why so few museum members become donors. This book doesn't address museum giving, but I hoped it would help me get into the mind of potential and current members and donors.


Overall premise of survey, brief data notes: Two researchers applied a "sociological perspective" to American giving, based on findings of a national study by the Science of Generosity Initiative at the University of Notre Dame. Research took place in 2010, and it took them six years to release it in this book.

Generosity is defined as "giving good things to others freely and abundantly." This isn't the same as philanthropy, which is narrower. Additionally, they studied nine types of generosity, focusing on three big ones (financial gifts, volunteering, and political action). To simplify this review, I'm only going to focus on financial gifts.

Their methodology looks good. But I found the text contradicting itself multiple times in the first two chapters, in ways that made absolutely no sense. My gut says poor copy-editing, but I ended up not spending considerable time here. That's OK. There's plenty of other philanthropy data out there. Some interesting points, however:​

• 90% of Americans participated in at least one form of generosity in previous year
• 25% volunteered in previous month
• Non-elderly retired are less likely to volunteer than younger adults (which means if working Boomers are not volunteering now, they are unlikely to do so upon retirement)
• 20% participated in some form of political action (above and beyond voting) in previous year (note this was 2010; see my update at The Data Museum)
• Only 10% give financially and volunteer and take political action
• Nearly half (45%) of Americans gave nothing in previous year, while nearly a quarter (23%) gave more than $500

How and why people give (the fantastic bits!): The research went into four factors that drive a gift. I'm presenting them in a different order than the authors, but in the order I think makes more sense to how they are (likely unconsciously) experienced.


1. Personal orientation towards giving.

Does an individual value generosity? Why do an estimated 2/3 of the population value generosity, while a quarter are neutral about it and 10% say they are not generous individuals? What are the individual values that someone has that drives a tendency towards generosity? Five attitudes seemed to drive if someone is generous (or not):

1. Social solidarity - the sense that we are all in this together
2. Collective conscious - we have a shared purpose; also influences size of gift
3. Prosperity outlook - mattered the most - the idea that there is plenty of resources to go around and it isn't a zero-sum game; also influences size of gift
4. Acquisition seeking - wanting material gains - negatively associated
5. Social responsibility - we are all responsible for, and to, each other; also influences size of gift

They examined two more attitudes that do not seem to affect if someone is generous or not:

1. Life purpose - we are here for a reason; does not affect whether they give or not, but does affect size of gift
2. Social trust - of others/strangers

Shockingly (to me), they interviewed some individuals that said things like "it's not a moral obligation [to help others]." To themselves and their families, sure, it is. But not others. Wow.

The frustrating bit here is that while they identified these attitudes, they had no discussion of how these attitudes came to be. Such as external forces that shape, instruct, and model behavior in front of children. Yeah, I'm talking about parents primarily. I suspect they are key in value formation, and I wish the authors had addressed this head on. They didn't.


2. Social affiliations that support/not support personal orientation.

That is, the people around us. How do they inspire and support giving? Six social affiliations, and if they are generous (or at least perceived that way) seem to matter:

1. Parents (learning from and their modeling giving behavior)
2. Spouse or partner
3. Religion
4. Friends
5. Local community
6. National affiliation

Of all these, the last two are weakest, and parents are the strongest. Some additional findings from this factor:
​

• When spouses are not in alignment on generosity, it tends to have a greater negative pull towards non-giving rather than the generous spouse pulling the other towards giving.
• Only 12% had a personal value that generosity was important AND higher than average reinforcement from the above affiliations. That's not much.
• People who don't particularly value generosity can be givers if they are surrounded by social affiliations full of givers. That's a big if.

But, overall, social affiliations serve to strengthen giving; in almost all cases valuing generosity has to come first.

I was, however, somewhat frustrated by this section as the authors don't explore how these social affiliations can drive an individual's development of values, including generosity, in the first place. Instead, they state that these affiliations are independent and do not affect anything else. Honestly, I don't buy it. Maybe during adulthood, but these affiliations certainly shape a child's moral development … an area ripe for study and one ignored in this research.


3. Capacity to give.

To discuss this, the authors borrowed from Maslow, identifying four stages of giving that essentially mirror his hierarchy of needs. They noted, however, that they were looking at how resources and life stage affects how much/how broadly someone who is generous gives, not whether someone actually gave to charity. That is, someone who is generous may only be at the first level, and have no capacity to act on that generosity, but would if they had the resources.

That being said, let's look at those levels, and how capacity to give can help move people up the hierarchy.

• Level 1: Self-sufficiency - taking care of self and not being a burden to others
• Level 2: Relational-parental - taking care of immediate family members so as not to be a burden to others; working to provide opportunities to family members to improve family outcomes (such as working multiple jobs to enable a child to go to college)
• Level 3: Community-religious - helping others in your community through giving locally and through houses of worship (e.g., tithing). Rather concrete giving where the giver sees how it benefits the community; feeling like they are part of community of givers.
• Level 4: Self-actualized giving (they called it professional-lifestyle, but I don't think that is totally accurate) - Broader giving that goes beyond personal communities, and can be more abstract. They also include giving to maintain professional and social standing.​

To distinguish between the last two, it is the difference between sponsoring a child through, say Save the Children, where you see concrete results for one child (community-religious) versus supporting anti-poverty or relief organizations generally, such as Doctors Without Borders. Or, thinking of museums, a museum member could be at the relational-parental level, joining to provide enrichment experiences for children (and my data suggests science centers and children's museums have a lot of these members). But a major donor could fall into the self-actualized giving, perhaps for social standing reasons, but also perhaps inherently valuing the capacity of museums to change lives (I say inherently because museums really lack data on this one).

Note also that having ample resources does not mean generous giving. You have to value generosity as well (and be surrounded by givers helps too). That is, someone can be very wealthy and only take care of themselves and their family. And, similarly, having limited resources doesn't mean someone isn't a self-actualized giver. Limited can still mean having a capacity to give.


4. Their giving process.

Being financially generous isn't a simple ask/give transaction. It's more complicated than that, as every good development director inherently knows. They identified four main types of givers:

1. Planners - 16% of Americans - they think very deliberately about their giving, and set up a systematic way of doing it. Thoughtful. Like to hear results. Museums: they probably are your renewing members and regular donors, but you have to earn their gift every year
2. Habitual - 6% of Americans - they are in the habit of giving, and once they include a specific charity in their giving, it is on auto-pilot. Kind of like another bill that has to be paid, or even tithing. How does a charity get included in their giving? It basically just happens. It is not something that has been given a huge amount of thought. Museums: they probably also are renewing members and regular donors, once you are in their "system." Trick is to get into their system.
3. Selective - 17% of Americans - they are deliberate in their giving in that think through a gift when the opportunity is presented. But they are not systematic about it at all, so they are also inconsistent givers. Museums: this means the pitch has to be right, but they likely have low renewal and recurring rates.
4. Impulsive - 42% of Americans - gifts are spontaneous, on a case-by-case basis, with low rates of recurrence. They will text money to disaster relief, or sponsor a co-worker in a race. Museums: they likely have low rates of membership in a museum. Membership would be a snap judgment at the admission desk, and unlikely to be renewed.
5. Other - 19% of Americans - did not fall neatly into any category, but their behaviors have them more typical of non-givers than givers.

This section is probably the most directly useful to museum fundraising, because if you can figure out what type of giver someone is, you can tailor the pitch. You can even combine tactics that appeal to all four types of givers in one request.


Implications for museums: Just as motivations to visit museums (or not) is a complicated topography of individuals, so is giving. Figuring out how they work together is key, because that enables broadening reach and gifts. And it is something I am in the process of internalizing and applying to my work.

For example, I suspect that many planners also are HNCs (have a high need for cognition) and are intrinsically motivated to learn. The traits of planners as described in this book strike me as similar. And I suspect impulsive givers are less likely to visit museums regularly for similar reasons … and when they do they do so for relational-parental reasons (above), which would be extrinsic. See? Complicated topography.

This leads me to some questions that I'm going to apply to the 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, that I have just pulled from the field. I want to think through the Topography of Giving as I do my analysis, especially given I asked specific questions about philanthropy and motivations for learning (intrinsic vs. extrinsic). I also want to compare it to my mental Topography of Museum-Going.

Then, on top of that, I want to layer it on a Topography of Community Engagement that I have been thinking about as well. This meshes with the values factors considered in the "personal orientation towards giving," and may be rather important.

I'll look at all of that because, well heck, it is a complicated and fascinating world, and it all matters to museums. Stay tuned to The Data Museum over the coming months as I release those results.


Read or skip? For most a skip. My summary and review will be sufficient. But if your read this and light bulbs were lighting up in your head, then go get a copy and you, too, can think obsessively about it. And likely sharpen your development skills.


Full citation: Herzog, Patricia Snell, and Price, Heather E. American Generosity: Who Gives and Why. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Disappointed and bored.

Not the experience I was expecting from the Amazon real-live bricks-and-mortar bookstore in Seattle.

I had high expectations, I suppose. Not for an amazing experience, but that it would be different than other bookstores (and it was), and that Amazon would use its extensive knowledge about me to sell me more books (utter failure there).

I thought I might learn something new that museums could learn from as well. And perhaps that I didn't is a lesson itself.

Let me explain.


My expectations. I buy a lot from Amazon. And they have a 20-year-history of my book purchases. So I went into the Amazon bookstore curious to see how they would take that data and apply it to me in the store. I figured they would give me a reason to pull my phone out, which would then tell their big servers in the sky "Whoa! Big book buyer in our store now! Cha-ching!" I hypothesized my phone would give me suggestions for books in the store, and that I might use my phone to scan bar codes of interesting books in the store so that then the app would suggest other books I could also order.


My disappointment. None of this happened. Except for a sign saying that Amazon Prime members get the Amazon.com price (and I am obviously a Prime member), there was no reason for me to pull my phone out. Which all meant it was a rather mundane bookstore experience. (BTW - when I opened the Amazon app to see if it would trigger anything … the app failed. Twice. When I finally got it open nothing different happened.)


Meh bookstore. So what made it "meh?" At first glance, it looks a lot like a Barnes and Noble. Bigger tech area (for selling Fires, etc.) Far fewer toys and arts and crafts supplies than B&N. Lots of shelves with books. But look again. Those shelves are not loaded. All books are presented cover out. It looks cool, and it is a lot like a virtual bookshelf you could swipe through, but it also means that the selection is very limited. B&N would fit 20 titles in the space Amazon fits 5.

Why I picked it up: Philanthropy is changing rather dramatically, with more donors expecting evidence of impact before making (or repeating) gifts. One outgrowth of this shift is "impact investing," where a donor isn't a donor at all, but an investor … an investor that expects returns both mission-related and financial.

What you need to know: First, the terminology. The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) defines impact investing as "investments made into companies, organizations, and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return."

An impact investor would thus look at a for-profit company through the exact same lens as a nonprofit. The investment choice would be the entity that can return the most bang for the buck, via both impact and financial returns.

Now, to this particular report, The Center for Effective Philanthropy surveyed 64 CEOs of private US foundations that give at least $10 million/year. Note, this is not a big sample size, so a grain of salt is prudent. (And it only covers foundations; impact investing is on the rise among individuals with high net worth as well.)

That being said, 41% of respondents said their foundations were already practicing some form of impact investing. That seems like a lot, but when it comes to dollars, it is pretty tiny. The median amount going towards impact investing was less than 1% of program/grant budgets.  The median amount of endowment funds being used for impact investing was 2%.

Are you confused now? I had to sort it out as well.  The thing with impact investing is that it is malleable. The returns are both mission-related impact and financial. Thus, a proposal for an impact investment could be categorized as a program/grant expense because of the mission-related impact. Or it could be categorized as part of the endowment because of the financial return. Heck, I suppose some foundations could say their investment is in some part both. 

The future of impact investing appears to be growth. Foundations practicing impact investing reported that it was a relatively new venture for them, but that they were seeking to increase their financial commitment to it. To date, however, the actual financial commitment of foundations to impact investing is small.

Note: the report also explored negative screening, or the practice of reviewing companies that endowment funds are invested in for red flags in conflict with their missions. Such as an environmental organization choosing not to invest in fossil-fuel companies. To be honest, I wasn't terribly interested in this part of the report and only skimmed it.

Implications for museums: Based on this report, this seems to be something to be aware of, and to consider if you have the right project. Impact investing may accelerate dramatically over the next few years … or stabilize at a relatively small portion of foundation allocations. I'll keep monitoring it and share new information going forward.

What concerns me more, however, is the bigger shift towards impact-based philanthropy. That's when foundations and donors expect far greater evidence of impact than museums have historically been prepared to supply (much less compete on). This trend appears to be accelerating much more rapidly, with far more dollars at stake. For museums to respond they need to invest more in measuring and understanding their lifelong impact on individuals and communities, and how they can deliver that impact more effectively than other choices.

Read or skip? Skip. Honestly, this report was difficult to read. While they took pains to define terms, it still ended up a being a bit of a muddle and I had to work to sort out what they meant. This may, in some part, be a reflection of how new impact investing is. But unless this is something you are seriously considering for your museum, skip. I'll keep looking for better resources.

Full citation:  "Investing and Social Impact: Practices of Private Foundations." Research report published by The Center for Effective Philanthropy. Released 2015.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.