Why I picked it up: Place interests me. Our connections to place, our interactions with place. I think a lot about how people interact with the communities they live and work in, and how museums do (and do not) contribute to that sense of place. I also am very interested in how we can do more to increase individual capacities to engage and contribute to the betterment of individuals and communities. Based on the title, this paper seems relevant.

What you absolutely need to know: The Kresge's Foundation's Arts and Culture Program "is dedicated to Creative Placemaking with a focus on equitable outcomes." The "observations and reflections" in this paper are rooted in the assumption that creative placemaking, or that the building of a community's cultural assets leads to healthier places for all of us to live (but often focusing on "historically marginalized communities"), is a desirable thing to pursue. This paper takes stock of what has happened thus far, and what is needed for further progress, written by a Kresge senior advisor working deeply in this area.

More details: Kresge entered into Creative Placemaking with three goals: 1 - using grounded theory in their work with low-income or historically marginalized communities; 2 - using empirical approaches to assess impact; and 3 - integrating arts, culture, and design in the realms of practice and policy.

After several years of work in this area, they are reporting success in seeing the concepts of Creative Placemaking becoming more widespread in community development and urban planning, as well as public health. The paper discusses in limited detail three areas of "critical field needs" for meeting the challenges and opportunities of creative placemaking:

1. Understanding Urban Inequality and Change. Do we really understand the root causes of inequality, as well as feasible solutions? The answer is a resounding no, but Kresge's work has shown evidence of neighborhood benefits via Creative Placemaking, such as social cohesion and sense of agency. But arts, culture, and design have to be way more than an afterthought in planning and development. My comment: why just "urban"? There is a lot of inequality in rural areas as well.
2. Meeting the Challenges of Cross-sectoral Work. Or, in other words, all these diverse sectors need to get on the same page, even if they go about our work in rather different ways.
3. Research, Evaluation, and Measurement. It is imperative that we do a better job developing tools to assess impact (and sussing out the best ways of having that impact to begin with).

There are critics, however, as Creative Placemaking can lead to gentrification, cultural appropriation, etc. Those are entirely valid concerns that this paper notes, but does not satisfactorily address.

Sidebar comment. The paper also notes that when Kresge entered the Creative Placemaking space, they did so without "succumbing to the dichotomous thinking prevalent in some dimensions of the arts field about the intrinsic vs. instrumental value of art and cultural activity."  I say "yay" to that, because I have never understood how one precluded the other. Arts and culture have intrinsic value. They also have instrumental value. Celebrate both. After all, we never see astronomers or mathematicians beating themselves up when their intrinsic and/or instrumental values are celebrated. Why do we?

Read or skip? It depends. If you are deep in the work of Creative Placemaking, or planning to request funding from Kresge, you should read it. (You should also note that this is one of a series of white papers released by Kresge, so you may want to review the others as well.) Otherwise, my summary is sufficient.

Full citation:  "Creative Placemaking and Expansion of Opportunity: Observations and Reflections." The Kresge Foundation. July 2018

Why I picked it up: Young adults are not monolithic. They present a variety of attitudes and behaviors. They are also more ethnically and racially diverse than older generations … a forerunner of the dramatic demographic change taking place (and leading to likely minority majority status by 2045). As museums strive to be more inclusive, and since young adults are more likely to visit museums than older adults, it pays to know this audience's attitudes on race.

What you need to know: It is, well, disheartening. Even among young adults there are ongoing, gaping divides between the attitudes of whites and those of people of color. This report highlights them, including:

• Young adults of color are significantly more likely than whites to think racism is a significant problem today.
• White Millennials are slightly more likely to say the Black Lives Matter movement is full of racists and totally invalid than to say they have a lot of good ideas. (More hopefully, however, white Millennials were still nearly 5 times more likely to say the Black Lives Matter movement has lots of good ideas (19%) than the alt-right movement (4%).)
• A majority of white Millennials see Confederate symbols through the lens of Southern pride, and nearly two-thirds oppose removing Confederate statues and symbols. Unsurprisingly, the majority of young adults of color feel rather differently.
• Millennial Trump voters are significantly more likely to feel that whites are economically losing ground compared to other racial and ethnic groups, including in the workplace and in college admissions.
• White Millennials were significantly less likely to include race/ethnicity as a major identifier of themselves than people of color (the overwhelming majority of whom listed it as their #1 identifier, over gender, economic class, etc.). This reminds me once again that only whites have the luxury of forgetting about the color of their skin in our American society.

Discrimination against whites.

I recently shared that research from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found 55% of white Americans thought whites experience discrimination. GenForward asked a similar question, and found 48% of white Millennials think discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against people of color.

Yep. Half of white Millennials think they are just as discriminated against as people of color. That is only seven percentage points lower than the American topline results, so while it is better than what older Americans think, it isn't a huge shift.

(Interestingly, a quarter of African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinxs agreed that discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against people of color. I find this result a bit dumbfounding.)

Other findings

There are, however, some more positive signs. Awareness of racial challenges and disparities appear to have increased among whites between July 2017 and September 2017 (a two-month period that included Charlottesville and other racial demonstrations). It is unclear, however, if that is a blip or sustained.

Additionally, the survey asked respondents what they thought the best way to make racial progress was. About a fifth of respondents said "organizing in communities," a number that was fairly consistent across race and ethnicity. Whites were similarly likely to say "community service and volunteering." Voting and non-violent protests also came up as good pathways. 

Implications for museums: Like I shared when reviewing "Discrimination in America," many whites are not as open to conversations and actions that promote inclusion and equity as we would hope. Thus, museums promoting a more inclusive interpretation should do so with awareness and preparation for white pushback … even among younger visitors. This is work that we must do, and anticipating that pushback strengthens our work, allowing us to push forward steadily. Because that's the goal: ongoing progress, not reactive pushes forwards and then similar retreats. 

Methodology comment: It is clear that the designers of the agenda had a hypothesis they wanted to test, and the survey instrument reflects that agenda, which is an anti-racism, progressive one (it included rather specific questions about Donald Trump and his purported racism, for example). This doesn't make the research bad, so long as the questions are presented neutrally and the results fairly. But it also makes this work easier to criticize if one were of the opinion, say, that whites face just as much (if not more) discrimination than people of color. Thus, when critiquing research, including studies you like or even my studies, instrument design is something to be mindful of and assess as necessary.

Read or skip? If you are deep in the weeds of inclusive practice, yes, read it. This will give you more nuance. If you have to pick one to read, I'd go for "Discrimination in America." This supplements that work nicely.
And if you have a Confederate symbol controversy raging or brewing in your community, the questions on those very things will undoubtedly be helpful (go to pages 20-22).
​

Full citation: "The 'Woke' Generation? Millennial Attitudes on Race in the US." genFORWARD. October 2017.  

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

Why I picked it up: My heart stopped a bit when I came across this report, as the reference shared that a majority (55%) of white Americans believe discrimination against whites exists in America today. You read that right. Discrimination against whites. I'll be honest. I didn't really want to read this report because I was afraid the results would appall me. But if we don't look societal challenges in the eye, what hope is there for us? So I got a backbone and dug in.

What you need to know: There was a piece of good news in the survey (and when I say "good," I mean more grounded in reality): 84% of whites believe there is discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities in America today. Awareness is a good first step towards positive action.

But the rest. Oh. My.

First off, that 55% majority of white Americans who believe whites are discriminated against. Statistically speaking, whites who believe whites are discriminated against are more likely to be:

• Republican
• Not have a college degree
• Non-LGBTQ
• Lower income
• Rural or urban residents
• Southern (Northeasterners are least likely; Midwesterners and Westerners fall in the middle)

Additionally, those who believe that anti-white discrimination exists also are much more likely to say:

• they have personally experienced anti-white discrimination (primarily in the workplace or in college admissions);
• other whites in their community "often" experience discrimination; and
• that white children in their community don't have the same chances for a quality education as minority children.

There were two more statistics that gave me pause:

• only 19% of whites think their local police would use unnecessary force against a person who is a racial or ethnic minority; and
• white Americans are more likely to say that institutional racism (based on laws and government policy) is a bigger problem for whites than for racial and ethnic minorities.

Take a few minutes to let all of this sink in.

Did the sheer magnitude of our country's problems with race and ethnicity just become that much harder and more complex? Do you want to scream?

I don't want to disparage the challenges individual families of all races and ethnicities have, especially when resources are limited. But for whites to attribute any of those challenges to their whiteness I find mind-boggling, appalling, sad, and also humbling.

Humbling may seem an odd word choice, but I'm trying to articulate the massiveness of the challenge. And my sadness is more about how resource inequality (which includes wealth, income, education, etc.) is creating greater divisions and blame-casting to more obvious scapegoats, and not the privileged policymakers and corporations that actually are more responsible for the systemic problems challenging millions (including actual systemic racism and discrimination).

Implications for museums: If museums truly want to be inclusive then we clearly need to consider more than attracting and engaging a more inclusive audience. We also need to understand that inclusion may well be seen by some as exclusionary. Which, again, is mind-boggling to me, but a reality for many. Knowing this, however, makes our work harder (it is just more complicated), and also easier (we can better anticipate these challenges).

But I can't help but also ponder the role museums have had in all of this. We, in the aggregate, primarily share the work of great white artists, white scientists, and our audiences are primarily white and affluent (making us part of the cycle of income inequality). And then consider how history organizations, over the past 150 years or so, have made heroes of so many white men, putting slaveholders on pedestals (an obvious example). This isn't to say great work isn't taking place at some history organizations to share a more inclusive history now, but we have decades of sins to overcome.

Read or skip? Anyone doing inclusive work should review this (and since we all should be doing inclusive work, that means you). It is a reality check that our work in this area is going to be really hard, especially if the majority of whites in the broader population don't have a realistic view of their privilege.

Full citation:  "Discrimination in America: Experiences and Views of White Americans." National Public Radio, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Harvard School of Public Health. November 2017.
​


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

Why I picked it up: Back when I was a museum director, I remember being told that your budget is your mission. That is, how resources are spent reflect the mission and values of an organization. Thus, what the United States spends via federal expenditures children (in this case) also reflects to some degree on our values as an American society. I picked this up to see if we are moving in a future-oriented direction, investing children … or not.

Given that those over 65 are likely to outnumber minor children by about 2045, I'll be honest and say I am not too hopeful for child welfare. Not that we shouldn't spend on the care of seniors (we should), but more that I don't think the high costs of senior care should come at the expense of children.

What it is: An analysis of federal expenditures on children from 1960 to 2017, and projections to 2028. It is a decent primer for what is actually spent where.

Key findings: Federal spending on children relative to GDP is expected to decline over every major category (health, education, income, security, etc.), and children's share of the budget is projected to drop from 9.4% to 6.9%. This decline is largely due to increased spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (45% of budget, excluding spending on children; it is expected to hit 50% by 2028), and interest payments on the debt (the latter of which will actually exceed spending on children by 2020).

Federal expenditures for children consist primarily of healthcare (Medicaid, CHIP, etc.), tax exemptions and credits to families, nutritional benefits, and income security. Low-income children receive 61% of all federal expenditures for children.

Education receives <10% of federal expenditures for children. States, in the aggregate, spend nearly twice as much on children than the federal government, and the bulk of their expenditures are for education. Indeed, states and local government provide 93% of governmental expenditures on child education. That being said, the 7% spent by the federal government is projected to decline steeply.

Implications for museums: First, and this isn't a museum implication but a societal implication, we as a country have essentially decided that investing in children isn't where we should focus. I find that troubling for many reasons (which you likely share).

This report also portends a troubling future for programs that are deemed more expendable in the budget. As the population ages, and funding becomes tighter as Social Security and Medicare obligations increase (as well as other, new challenges that come with an aging population), any program that is deemed remotely expendable, rightly or wrongly, is likely to face greater scrutiny (at best) and even elimination. I fear the battles over IMLS, NEH, and NEA are only beginning.
​
Additionally, budget constraints will likely ripple out to states and local governments. When federal dollars only reach so far, state and local governments will then be forced to conduct their own assessments and reallocations to make up gaps in childhood care and education, care for seniors, and perhaps for infrastructure and other basic needs. That may mean trouble for line items deemed more expendable, such as state parks, municipal museums, and arts and humanities funding.

Lest I leave you depressed and pessimistic, however, the future doesn't have to mean absolute doom and gloom for museums if museums are proactively part of the solution. That means, when it comes to children, being truly indispensable to child development and welfare. While some well-educated museum-going parents may be prepared to say that now, when push comes to shove I doubt museums will make the cut unless we actually are indispensable to all children, providing measurable, positive impacts on those children and society. Even then, while it would give museums an opportunity compete effectively for funding, my reading of this report indicates funding opportunities will still likely be from private sources.

Let's also consider seniors. As their numbers grow, so will their health and social needs … but increasing evidence shows that cultural engagement (including museums) can help maintain well-being, decreasing healthcare costs. That gives museums an opening to develop positive impacts for individual seniors while also providing pragmatic cost-saving solutions for health spending. If, of course, we are savvy about what we do, measure the impact, and make the case.

Read or skip? The executive summary is excellent. Otherwise, skip, unless you are planning on advocating directly on this issue. The full report really gets into the weeds of budgetary policy (example: how the Budget Control Act of 2011 affected spending on children).

Full citation: "Kids' Share 2018: Report on Federal Expenditures on Children Through 2017 and Future Projections." Urban Institute. July 2018.


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

I am a hyper-curious person, and curiosity is an important value in my life … as well as an important impact of museums.

But curiosity isn't limited to museums, and can be hard to sustain through adulthood. By sharing some of my curious paths through reading, I'm hoping to reinforce how important wide-ranging curiosity is to our practice and spark new conversations that may seem unrelated to museums, but deeply matter to how we do our work. After all, as museums we cover a variety of topics. Our curiosity should also be as omnivorous!

To that end, from time to time I'll share some of my wide-ranging reads, mostly non-fiction, and hope to hear recommendations from you.

King Sequoia: The Tree That Inspired a Nation, Created Our National Park System, and Changed the Way We Think About Nature, by William C. Tweed.

While the title is a bit over the top, this was a quick and interesting read about how one type of tree has figured in our cultural history and ecological thinking. After all, majestic is an understatement when it comes to this tree. Depressing fact: way too many Sequoias were felled by timber companies, and when they fall, they shatter … making much of their wood largely useless for much besides things like grapevine stakes. Also, Sequoia the tree has nothing to do with Sequoyah the Cherokee.


The Natural World of Winnie-the-Pooh, by Kathryn Aalto.
If you love Pooh (or, in my case, Eeyore), grounding the antics of Piglet and company in the physical landscape and natural environment of the very-much-real Ashdown Forest brings even more meaning to the stories. I loved this book and how it juxtaposes the stories with the actual place.


On Looking: Eleven Walks with Expert Eyes, by Alexandra Horowitz.
My friend Rainey Tisdale uses this book in her work, and so I picked it up at her recommendation. The author takes eleven walks with experts in various disciplines, and then explores how much we miss (and how complex our environment is). From geology to bugs to dogs, it is a fascinating read that is relevant to anyone creating environments for people to experience  ... or for those who are simply curious.

Why I picked it up: The subtitle of this book is "why certain experiences have extraordinary impact." Or what our field (and other fields as well) calls "transformation." If museums are capable of these moments (and virtually all of us believe that to be so), than how do we optimize the experiences we share to trigger more of them? I've also read a couple of other books by the Heath brothers, and generally like their work.

My research to date that likely affects my read of this book: We are all interested in what makes museum experiences particularly meaningful, or at least stand out in some ways. In my 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, I asked museum-goers to share with me stand-out or meaningful museum experiences, which I then painstakingly coded. Generally, what the Heath brothers write is in agreement with my findings.

What you need to know: What are the most memorable events in our lives? What makes them memorable? And how can we optimize the odds that the experiences we design for museums become defining moments?
For the authors, "defining moments" are our most memorable positive moments, the peaks (as well as, to be fair, the pits) of our lives.

They examined what they see as the four main components of those moments:

Elevation: an event that isn't normal, but out of our every-day lives. Includes elements of surprise, serendipity, and multiple senses. They focus on three types: transitions (e.g., weddings, first day of new jobs), milestones, and pits (negative moments). For museums, I think the "surprise" and "serendipity" types are crucial, especially since visiting a museum in and of itself is typically and out-of-our-every-day-lives moment.

They advise that to create moments of elevation, you need to boost sensory appeal, raise the stakes in some way, and break the script. Or, in other words, surprise people with a more multi-sensory, immersive experience that they don't expect, and make it feel random and serendipitous.
​
Insight: a change in our understanding of something. This is the type of moments that museums excel at, because they are moments of realization and changed thinking. They happen when a visitor learns something surprising, or connects what had seemed to be two disparate things. These moments also often feel serendipitous, because they are not expected.

These moments also occur when a visitor learns the depths of something that is troubling, difficult, or worse than tragic.  When they "trip over the truth." An example that came to mind for me is the inherent privilege of whites in society. Whites often cannot see their own privilege because it is so ingrained, but if they are forced to trip over the truth, and see how it is often at the expense of others, would that create any change in our society? How can museums enable that realization, while also promoting positive action? But the Heath brothers point out to do this, we cannot share our feelings or insight, but create a situation where the visitor comes to the same conclusion, and thus takes ownership of it. That means not telling a white visitor they are privileged, but instead installing a cognitive trip wire so that they figure it out on their own.

Pride: moments of achievement or courage. While we can create ways of doing this in museums (such as youth art shows, or science competitions), the things I considered while reading the book had mostly to do with engaging staff more effectively to improve productivity, creativity, attitudes, and well-being. So if your museum needs to shift the culture among staff, this book has lots of ideas … especially in terms of pride.

Connection: milestone moments we share with family and friends, which connect us to each other. So think of shared experiences. Museums do a pretty great job at shared experiences with family members, such as parent-child experiences. But this section had me thinking more about how shared experiences can help communities, giving people a shared purpose to effect change. To do this, according to the Heath brothers, we have to provide understanding, validation, and caring. Does your staff do that? Do your exhibitions signal these things?

​The overall conclusion of the book is that real meaning making isn't just a serendipitous realization (though it often feels that way), but a jolting into action. And here is where I think museums struggle. We're pretty good with the realization part, but not the action. Perhaps, then, it isn't surprising that I deeply appreciated what I think of as the "call to action" room at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

But ultimately, defining moments are magic, and the good news is that museums inherently create these moments all the time. Visiting a museum is already an outside the day-to-day experience, and is optimized for serendipity and meaning making. But that doesn't mean we couldn't optimize it even more, thus creating even greater impact, greater fulfillment of mission, higher engagement with museums over a lifetime, and better connection between realization and action.

My stumbling block with this book (which I otherwise thought was great): One of the points they make is that most of the defining moments in our lives are clustered in our teens and twenties. Well, sure, because that time frame includes many big moments of separation from our childhood lives, maturing into adulthood (and all of those responsibilities), and perhaps becoming a parent. But I thought the Heath brothers failed to clearly pick apart the two types of defining moments.

Let me explain. Joseph Walters and Howard Gardner examined what they called "crystallizing experiences" back in the 80s, and they differentiated between "initial" and "refining" moments. An "initial" moment are those big moments of life, those moments that mark a big transition, that fill you with big awe and wonder, or a sucker-punch to the gut of insight. These moments, in museums, are what we tend to talk about and aim for. But aside from young children, they are not that typical, and you can't force them.

But "refining" moments. Wow, my research is replete with them. They are little moments of insight, connection, revelation. The "I didn't realize" moments. Or, "I didn't know that!" They build on each other in meaningful ways, they feel serendipitous, and they positively reinforce the behavior that creates them (the dopamine hit they create may have something to do with this). Museums excel at these "oh!" moments, and they are vital to the extraordinary impact we have had in the lives of some museum-goers. This is where there is a great deal of opportunity to deepen meaning-making in museums.

The Heath brothers lump these all together, and I think that is a mistake. Because while initial moments are amazing, in museums they are unpredictable, difficult to create, and likely resource-heavy. In contrast, refining moments are easier to plan, easier to optimize, and bring museum-goers back, over and over, ultimately effecting deeper impact.
​
Read or skip? I have to look at this two ways:

1. If you are a leader of a museum that wants to change the culture of your staff in a positive direction, this book is worth a read as there are many ideas within it that can help.
2. If you are responsible for creating the moments that happen in your museum, then it is worth a read. And since that means exhibitions developers, curators, educators, front-line/visitor services, membership, development, marketing, and so on, then yes, my recommendation is for pretty much everyone to read it.

Full citation:  Heath, Chip, and Heath, Dan. The Power of Moments: Why Certain Experiences Have Extraordinary Impact. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2017.


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

Recent studies I have reviewed show strong evidence that culture and health go hand-in-hand: individuals that participate in culture tend to be healthier and exhibit greater well-being, and the same goes for communities. (For examples, see "Creative Health" and "The Social Wellbeing of New York City's Neighborhoods.")

So looking at state and municipal rankings on health and wellbeing can be incredibly useful for considering how museums can make significant contributions to their communities through the lens of their missions.

To get a sense of those rankings, here's a quick roundup. I encourage you to check out how your state or city scores, and then consider how your museum, working alone, with other museums, or with community partners, might help address areas of weakness. 

State of American Well-Being: 2017 State Well-Being Rankings
What it is: National survey by Gallup • Sharecare to capture well-being across five dimensions:

1. Purpose
2. Social
3. Financial
4. Community
5. Physical

The report compares each state overall, and then by each dimension. Page six of this (very short) report gives best practices to consider. (National Geographic turned this into a smiley-face map of the US, and also shared some details not found in the overall summary.)

Sadly, the national index score decreased from 2016 to 2017, with 21 individual states showing declines and no states showing a statistically significant improvement. The biggest declines nationally are in the "purpose" and "social" dimensions. I've seen evidence of this in my client work as well, when working with the broader population. There is an exhaustion that is, in part, due to the political and news cycles, but in other parts due to the relentlessness of the challenges of modern life. To be honest, I was surprised there wasn't a decline in the "community" dimension as well.

Full citation:   "State of American Well-Being: 2017 State Well-Being Rankings." Gallup • Sharecare. February 2018.


State of American Well-Being: 2017 Community Well-Being Rankings
What it is: The same research from the "State of American Well-Being" report, but broken down by cities.
Interesting notes: 17 of the top 25 communities are in only five states, while about half of the lowest 25 communities are in the South. Overall, well-being is higher for people in urban areas than rural areas, for a variety of reasons from access to resources to socio-economic patterns. But on the flip side, community well-being tends to increase as the population size decreases, so there are pros and cons for both rural and urban areas.

Like in the state-based report, page six shares best-practices to consider, some of which may be mission-appropriate for museums.

Full citation: "State of American Well-Being: 2017 Community Well-Being Rankings." Gallup • Sharecare. March 2018.


America's Health Rankings: Annual Report 2017
What it is: An assessment of health that looks across 35 measures, including clinical care and policy, but also behaviors, community, and environment. The emphasis is on complete health, looking at physical, mental, and social well-being. Similar to the "State of American Well-Being," this assessment had troubling decreases in health outcomes, primarily rising rates of premature death.

Head straight to page eleven, where you can see the ranking to gain an immediate snapshot of how your state is doing. And then flip over to page fourteen, as it breaks down state rankings through the lenses of behavior, community and environment, policy, clinical care, and health outcomes. Full-page reports on each state start on p. 109.

The report also examines critical health issues, how socio-economic status relates to health outcomes, and then compares the US to other countries. Much of this is only tangentially relevant to museums (though could make interesting exhibits and programs for science centers or for history museums looking at them through a historical lens). There were a few things, however, that museums may be able to work with partners to address, such as:

• High school graduation (p. 50)
• Physical inactivity (p. 54)
• Children in poverty (p. 59)
• Disconnected youth (p. 97)
• Neighborhood amenities (p. 98)
• Poor mental health days (p. 105)

Full citation: "America's Health Rankings: Annual Report 2017. United Health Foundation. December 2017.

I love infographics. I wish I could present all my research via infographics.

Sadly, I'm not that talented (though I am pretty proud of my Data Stories and work with a fantastic graphic designer to make my ugly sketches into beautiful reality).

But I do try to look at how others present data, and sometimes, when I'm lucky, something clicks and I figure out a better way of presenting my research to you.

With this post, I'll start sharing some of my favorite (and not-so-favorite) inspiration sources for infographics. Short reviews of books (below are three to start) and, from time to time, specific infographics I run across that I think are fabulous for some reason or other.

I have three goals here:

1 - to help you gain a better appreciation of infographics, because if the story it is trying to tell is beautifully clear, you can be sure that a lot of hard work went into it;

2 - to help train your eye and mind to consider the infographic medium as one that museums could make far better use of in exhibitions; and

3 - to have fun with this, because I find joy in a beautiful in finding new meaning in data, and infographics are a fun way of gaining those insights. I know, I'm weird.

Now, three quick reviews.

Why I picked it up: A client, after hearing my research, suggested it as he thought it had findings rather similar to my own … especially for my broader population contextual work.

Main thesis of book: American communities are evolving, and perhaps struggling, because the way our society is structured has fundamentally changed. Over the past few decades, most Americans have grown closer to a smaller number of intimate relations and close friends (an inner ring), and increased interactions with casual acquaintances (an outer ring of like-minded individuals in some way, such as professional contacts, fellow doorknob collectors, etc.), at the expense of a middle ring. That middle ring, of more ordinary friends and people we rubbed up against in our neighborhoods, is where community has historically been made.

Why the shift? He cites three reasons:

1. Greater mobility: Not just the movement of people and goods, but ideas. Think globalization, information access, etc. The net result of greater mobility is more globalization, digitization, and the emergence of the service economy.
2. Crisis of social mobility and income inequality.
3. Home life has changed with more working women and a putting off of marriage and children, while also more companionate marriages have made the inner ring stronger. Some argue this means less stability for communities, but others might argue more freedom of choice and action for individuals.

​The problem with the shift is that we only rub up against like-minded others. We have "nichified" ourselves to form a heterogeneous society of homogeneous, well, cliques. And within those cliques of like-minded individuals, we actually are driven to conform. (Bill Bishop covers this nichification in The Big Sort.)

By skipping over that middle ring, of community and making friends from that community, we don't encounter other viewpoints, don't learn how to engage in disagreement effectively, we cannot bank social capital, and we also lose the creative friction all of this generates. It is now way too easy to skip over the hassles and challenges of the middle ring in our transactions and our affinities. And he nails it when he points out that in the past, when the middle ring was thicker, "neighborliness" meant reaching out to the people who live next door. Today, it means leaving those around you in peace.

Dunkelman doesn't try to say the shift towards thicker inner and outer rings is good or bad, as he thinks it is a done deal and our society now needs to create new ways to mitigate the challenges that arise out of this shift. Disappointingly, while he wants us to be thoughtful on how we build new structures to take its place, he isn't all that forthcoming on ideas.

My take, based on my research: Generally, I agree with many of the themes in this book. My client was right that much of it my research finds similar trends.

In my work, I have found a shift in emphasis from communities of necessity,  which was the old structure Dunkelman argues we have lost, to communities of interest. In other words, 50 years ago people created community out of their neighbors, and joined things like the local Elks. But today, we can create virtual communities based on our idiosyncratic interests instantly, so many of us spend our time doing so … at the expense of local community. An example might be doorknob collectors (which you might smile at, but this is a specific example from some of my qualitative work). 

This graphic is one I have developed to illustrate people's capacity to engage with others, from taking care of themselves to engaging with the broader world. In this case, "community" is grayed out as I am illustrating how my research indicates young adults in particular struggle to connect with their community. Dunkelman's thesis would put most Americans where I have the young woman … not engaging with that middle ring. I generally agree with that.

One concept that I kept thinking about as I read this book, however, is the idea that we have "nichified" ourselves to form a heterogeneous society of homogenous cliques, at the expense of understanding, empathy, etc. And here I think museums may have an opportunity.

In open-ended questions from my 2017 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, a sizable number of museum-goers wrote in that museums had made them more understanding of others by broadening perspectives, presenting different viewpoints, etc. (See my Research Release #4, "The Value of Museums.") I followed that up with a closed-ended question in my 2018 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, and found that 43% of museum-goers felt museums had benefited them in this way. That's pretty sizable. (Research release forthcoming.)

So this begs the question if museums can be a proactive part of the solution. After all, among the niche of museum-goers, we may be making a difference. But is our audience of museum-goers enough to make a societal difference? I doubt it. Extending this work to broader audiences would be necessary, which brings a host of other access challenges.

Read or skip? Skip. The thesis is compelling, and I see it in my own work, so I liked that. But I felt there was a lot of filler in this book. A quick Google search, and my skim, indicates the following two articles by Dunkelman are good synopses.

• "The Key to Reviving American Institutions May Lie Next Door." The Atlantic, September 9, 2015.
• "The Transformation of American Community." National Affairs, Spring 2018.

Full citation:  Dunkelman, Marc J. The Vanishing Neighbor: The Tranformation of American Community. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2014.



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

Why I picked it up: What on earth does a book about developing nations have to do with museums, especially American ones? Quite a bit, as it turns out.

There are a few areas of my work that I have always struggled with, and one is how to discuss what I usually describe as low socio-economic status (SES) households. Households that have fewer resources, and more barriers to museum visitation. I've come to a realization that museums (inadvertently, perhaps) perpetuate income inequality as our (primarily) well-educated audiences provide resources and experiences to their children, yielding benefits that make that next generation better educated, more employable, and often higher earning. A perpetuation of privilege. I'm part of that privilege, and museums are part of what helped me, just as I count on them to help my children be more knowledgeable and compassionate thinkers.

To say "if only low SES households would visit …" seems patronizing while also self-serving to museums. And it also shifts "blame" to low SES individuals. Like it is their fault for challenges they face in their lives when, instead, it is often a slew of external forces that are influencing life outcomes. Forces such as family medical or caregiving needs, childhood upbringing, systemic racism, and economic insecurity.

Which is why reviewing another book, American Generosity, was such a revelation to me. It utilized a capacity approach to how individuals exhibit generosity, and it is an approach I have embraced in my own work. It is an approach that casts no judgement on an individual. Instead, it embraces human dignity, recognizing that capacity to engage with others, a community, or the broader world varies widely. It is one that moves us to do what we can to increase individual capacity so that more can reach their full potential.

I recently reviewed Welcome to Your World, where I came across the work of Martha Nussbaum (the author of this book) and economist Amartya Sen. I was intrigued by their ideas on capabilities, as well as negative freedoms (e.g., freedom from want) and positive freedoms (e.g., freedom to educate oneself). My desire to learn more led me to this book.

What you need to know: First off, the Capabilities Approach is based on the question "What are people actually able to do and to be?" It focuses on respect for individuals and their human dignity, and has been adopted by the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme.

The Capabilities Approach is rooted in choice and freedom, which thus creates individual opportunity. This emphatically makes the approach highly concerned about "entrenched social justice and inequality." The overall goal is to lift everyone on the planet up to a widely held threshold of capability that builds internal capabilities of health, education, etc., along with changes in the social, political, and economic environments that allow people to act on their internal capabilities.

There are 10 Central Capabilities:

• Life (of normal length)
• Bodily health
• Bodily integrity
• Senses, imagination, and thought
• Emotions
• Practical reason
• Affiliation (includes compassion)
• Other species (living with natural environment)
• Play
• Control over one's environment

Some of these capabilities lend themselves to negative freedoms (that is, bodily health implies freedom from want or hunger), while others lend themselves to positive freedoms (freedom to feel, learn, or play). Lifelong learning, such as through museums, can increase a number of these capabilities.

Implications for museums:

1. Consider the ten capabilities and how museums can support capabilities through some or all of them.
2. Reframe our value as increasing people's capacity to grow, both personally and as contributing members of society.
3. Actually help people … live the philosophy.
4. Collect and show evidence of how we do this work. After all, this is how we make a difference, and we need to show that evidence to generate the resources we need to expand that work.

Theory and Circular Logic Tangent (skip this part of the review unless you enjoy getting in my head): Throughout this book I struggled with my own circular logic. I know from my research that museum-goers exhibit greater capacity to engage with the world, and improved life outcomes (even when controlling for educational attainment). Pursuing lifelong learning (including visiting museums) likely is a key reason for that gap. So, in theory, if we provide greater access to our resources to more people, we could help improve individual capacity, right? Sure. But this also feels patronizing (my review notes actually include the word "imperialistic"). Like telling someone with an unhealthy diet to eat their spinach. They know it is better, but they don't want to do it. And, indeed, they have the individual freedom to choose their diet.

Yet, flipping it around, why do I think encouraging people to visit museums more to increase capabilities is patronizing, but telling kids to stay in school isn't? Aren't they both about education? Or, to take from Nussbaum, is forcing children to visit museums early and often (as well as other enrichment lifelong learning activities) a "necessary prelude to adult capability?" Yet not everyone needs museums to have good outcomes in life … just like I can dislike kale and still be a healthy adult (I actually like spinach).

Fortunately, my struggles with the theory, my own circular logic, and presumptions are not unique. Nussbaum herself delves into it herself, trying to find her own line in the sand, just as I am. So whew, it isn't just me.

Read/skip: Skip. You got this from this review. Unless you love theory (because this book is theory heavy).

Full citation:  Nussbaum, Martha C. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011.

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