Why I picked it up: As I continue to analyze research I fielded around American attitudes towards inclusive history, anything that feeds into that analysis will inevitably catch my eye. The stat that nearly half of whites think a majority nonwhite population will weaken American culture certainly did that, and as places of American culture, museums need to pay attention to these attitudes.

What you need to know: Pew asked Americans to consider what they thought America would be like in 30 years, and found widespread pessimism, with respondents believing that the US will decline in worldwide importance while our American society becomes increasingly unequal and increasingly polarized. While this pessimism could reflect current dissatisfaction with the current state of the country (nearly 3/4 are dissatisfied with that), it also highlights very real challenges that we are grappling with.
​
The report focused on perceived challenges in four areas (perceived because they were asking what Americans thought about the future):

• Weaker economy
• Growing income divide
• Degraded environment
• Broken political system

​My focus, however, was on American culture, and here things were, well, interesting. While only 23% of respondents said that a shift to a majority nonwhite population (estimated in 2050) would be "bad," whites were about twice as likely to say so than people of color. Additionally, whites were about twice as likely to feel that this shift would weaken American culture. 

Yet interestingly, minorities are more optimistic about the country's future than whites. I wonder what drives this, and speculate it may be because whites may be more likely to see a majority minority future as a challenge, whereas minorities may see it as an opportunity.

While race, age, and education affected how people responded, the bigger gap in the survey was between Republicans and Democrats … a gap that I see in my research as well. People's political attitudes reflect their social attitudes in highly pervasive ways, and Republicans and Democrats agree on very little in this research. Bridging that gap (whether in politics or in attitudes towards inclusive history, DEAI, science and the environment, or anything else), will be a challenge that affects all of us … including museums.

Implications for museums: One of the things I have been thinking about in my work is how we bridge the gaps in our polarized society, and how much political persuasion correlates with what side someone takes on an issue. This report underscored those gaps today and projects them into the future in ways that are clearly troubling. Yet I keep coming back to a question: what are the shared values we still have? Then, how can we use those shared values to allow real conversations about our pasts, our environment, our communities, our different backgrounds, and our country today? And what should be the role of museums in sparking curiosity about others, gaining knowledge, and developing empathy, understanding, and tolerance? Because someone has to … and that work may be the work of museums as one of the few places that are trusted and considered safe for just that kind of exploration.

Read or skip? The big takeaway is it underscores how divided our country really is, and in ways that affect museums. Internalize that, and you can probably skip in favor of research more specific to how it affects museums. But if you want to get really depressed, go read it. It doesn't paint a particularly optimistic portrait of the future or for an America that is willing to come together to tackle problems.

Full citation:  "Looking to the Future, Public Sees an America in Decline on Many Fronts." Pew Research Center. March 2019
​
Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: I'm interested in how spaces work, and I am also interested in inequality, the levels of civic engagement and discourse in our country, and health and wellness. This book is a confluence of these things, so I picked up a copy as soon as I heard about it.

What you need to know: The author studies what he calls social infrastructure, "the physical places and organizations that shape the way people interact." It isn't the same thing as social capital, which measures people's relationships and interpersonal networks. Instead, it is about the physical conditions that determine how easy it is for that social capital to develop … or not.

There is an increasing numbers of academic research that documents the physical and mental benefits of social ties, but are there physical mechanisms that make those social ties easier to develop? Klinenberg says yes.

He goes on to make a case that a strong social infrastructure is increasingly critical because when it fails it can have catastrophic consequences for people's health and wellbeing: as a chronic condition of unattachment and/or when disaster hits (such as a natural disaster).

So what are the places that promote social infrastructure? He suggests the places we would call "third places," such as playgrounds, libraries, parks, etc., as well as the community organizations that meet in those places. These places can be designed to promote interactions in ways that benefit residents.

This book kept reminding me of The Vanishing Neighbor, by Marc Dunkelman (reviewed here March 2018), which suggested that communities are struggling as Americans have reduced their "middle-ring" friendships of casual acquaintances and friendships. When that support social network fails, so do communities. Similarly, when the social infrastructure that supports the "middle-ring" friendships fails, so do the support networks that help all of us over the long-term and in times of crises. Both books make the case that we are facing challenges, and that we need these community places and networks to engage with each other to our mutual benefit.

Implications for museums: Theoretically, museums would be great places to build social infrastructure (and some do). What breaks my heart in this book is that Klinenberg doesn't mention museums once. He does, however, love libraries, and speaks at length about how they serve as crucial social infrastructure for many. Indeed, this book could serve as a love letter to libraries.

It begs the question, however, of how and why we have structured our museums historically so that museums are simply not even considered part of the social infrastructure of our communities. We can do better. We must.

Read or skip? If you are interested how place and community intersect for greater wellbeing, and/or if you liked The Vanishing Neighbor, you should pick it up. There is a lot in the book to think about and consider. I only scratched the surface in this review. Otherwise, this review is likely sufficient.
​
Full citation: Klinenberg, Eric. Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life. New York: Crown, 2018.


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

Why I picked it up: Civics. It is a topic not well-taught in school, yet seems to be one our country desperately needs. Indeed, in my research museum-goers often lament how our society needs civics to properly function. The idea that museums could step into this gap also comes up, so the theme of this paper caught my eye. That civic learning also leads to equity and opportunity also caught my eye, since those are also impacts that museums often seek to create as well.

What you need to know: The two organizations behind the paper, the National Conference on Citizenship and Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, are examining if civics can be used to "build an inclusive foundation of engaged citizens," and thus address challenges different population segments are facing. Their recommendations include:

1. Expansion of who is a civic educator, and who needs civic learning. They are recommending a community-wide approach. They don't give examples of who might be doing this out of the formal education system, but museums (particularly history museums) seem like a natural fit.
2. Using civics to "increase understanding and engagement across lines of difference, while ensuring a shared foundation of knowledge about history." History is a key part, as they note that "by learning about history, students can contribute to developing solutions to public problems, contextualized by the longstanding challenges their communities and peers may have faced." They also emphasize the value of individual lived experiences and perspectives
3. Ensure civic literacy as a core educational function. That civics is a critical part of preparing "to engage in civic and democratic processes," thus improving their socioeconomic position as well.
4. Support cross-sector collaboration promoting civic learning. It needs to be both a school and community experience. So they are suggesting the addition of nonprofit, government, corporate, and philanthropic efforts

​I have to admit that while I think these goals are noble, number two stood out for me as I don't think that people across lines of difference can agree upon history itself. I'm seeing too much coming out of work I have in the field that indicates that is going to be a challenge. If we can't agree on what happened in the past, and why it happened that way, how are we supposed to move forward? I'm not normally so pessimistic, but too much is leaning me that way right now.

I do, however, very much like how they summarized each goal and then looked at it through the lenses of equality, opportunity, and equity. By rigorously doing it for each goal, and then through each lens separately, they make clear how these are three distinct things that are necessary to consider.

Read or skip? This review gives you a sense of some efforts in the areas of civics. That may be enough for you, in which case, skip. But if you are planning initiatives in the realm of civics, civic dialogue, etc., then I recommend looking at the NCOC and PACE websites for more papers coming out of their working sessions. There may be new details that are food for thought or opportunities for museums to step up in a meaningful way.

Full citation: "Recommendations for Exploring Civic Learning as a Pathway to Equity and Opportunity." National Conference on Citizenship and Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement. January 2018

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

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: 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: 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.

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.

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.