Conclusions: active partnerships versus empowerment-lite?

Active partnerships versus empowerment-lite?

The study was entered into with the intention of taking the temperature of engagement and participation in a cross-section of the UK’s museums and galleries, in 12 organisations, all of which are committed to public engagement. Through a process of active participation (reflection, discussion, debate) by the staff and community partners of these organisations, the faultlines of engagement in even the most committed museums and galleries were collaboratively uncovered. It was found that, despite examples of very good working practice, real engagement that goes beyond ‘empowerment-lite’ faces hitherto unseen obstacles that inevitably result in the dissatisfaction of both staff members and community partners. The study clearly demonstrated that “having a seat at the table is a necessary but not sufficient condition for exercising voice. Nor is presence at the table (on the part of institutions) the same as a willingness to listen and respond”¹. It is therefore unsurprising that offers by museums and galleries of what amounted to  empowerment-lite’ too often led to dissatisfaction in the relationships with their community partners. The fault-lines within the museum’s or gallery’s organisational culture were consistently revealed by the process of this study as barriers to proper involvement. Despite best efforts to the contrary, these invisible barriers continue to create and recreate the mechanisms of marginalisation. They include attitudes that, in a number of cases, influenced the following:

• False consensus and inadvertently using people to ‘rubber-stamp’ organisational plans
• Policies and practices based on ‘helping-out’ and ‘doing-for’
• Community partners treated as ‘beneficiaries’ rather than ‘active agents’
• Project funding leading to non-mainstreaming of participation and pretending things are better than they are
• Absence of strong, committed leadership and a strategic plan for engagement

These are very real barriers, but they are surmountable. As the study has shown, through a collaborative process of courageous reflection with community partners, things can be brought to light and begin to change.

Strongest work

The strongest work that emerged from this study came from those organisations that had shifted the role of their community partners from beneficiaries (or supplicants) to active agents and partners of the museum.

They had transformed their role into one of supporting people in developing their own capabilities. These museums and galleries had realised their capability in helping others to realise theirs. At the same time, they gained from the reciprocal capability of others in helping them reflect on their public engagement role. The best examples of embedded and effective community engagement came from those organisations that, while sharing similar ideals, were pragmatic in their approach and thoroughly embedded in their particular locality. They think – and talk to each other and their partners, constantly – about what they do. Furthermore, they are unafraid to be self-critical, to take risks and therefore continually to develop their practice.

Tackling lack of openness in the sector

One community member noted: “You – your organisation – need us more than we need you.” It became abundantly clear in this study that this was indeed true – that museums and galleries need their community partners in a way not always credited, perhaps as the only way these museums and galleries can take a clear look at their own practices, through the lens – the perceptions and the active input – of their service users and community partners. The opportunity the study provided to reflect collectively in an open way on practice was surprisingly unusual. This in itself became the most important outcome of the study. It became clear that lack of discussion was a significant – perhaps the significant – cause of the frequent disillusionment surrounding current museum engagement practices. This lack of open discussion, the inability to address issues head on, contributed to the anger and frustration, the feeling of ‘being stuck’, which was so often expressed by community partners and staff alike. Following the end of the research programme, therefore, Paul Hamlyn Foundation facilitated ‘surgeries’ by Dr. Bernadette Lynch with each of the participating organisations and their community partners to address the barriers to full participation and empowerment brought to light by the study, and to help maintain this collaborative way of working.

Next steps: clusters of empowering practice

Organisations are now building on these new insights and guidance to determine how they might change to bring communities effectively into the heart of all their work. Following upon the study’s recommendation for matchmaking, some of the organisations are already reviewing policy and practice, and forming ‘cluster’ groups to pursue new ideas for co-developing practice.

• Set in motion by the study, Belfast Exposed is building on the organisation’s concept of the gallery as an ‘exchange mechanism’. In this way, they are further developing their space as a ‘civic forum’. The purpose is to set up an ongoing exchange between the gallery and the city’s diverse communities. Lack of civic space is a major issue for Northern Ireland, and the museum wants to contribute to the establishment of civic space within the city of Belfast. They are doing this by slowing down on the demands of other programming (exhibitions) so as to create time and space for dialogue and debate, bringing together people and partners currently working with them at events which open up opportunities to cross networks and share experiences. Meanwhile they are meeting with other organisations within the Paul Hamlyn Foundation study.
• Glasgow’s Open Museum staff began travelling in 2011 to extend the conversation and see other practice (“expanding what’s possible!”). They have met with Ryedale Folk Museum and have been to Hackney Museum and Belfast Exposed. They say: “We’re all keen to take advantage of this opportunity to support and learn from each other’s experiences.”
• Wolverhampton Arts and Heritage Service and the Lightbox Museum and Art Gallery have been meeting with the Museum of East Anglian Life to work on developing ideas for social enterprise.
• Ryedale Folk Museum’s Director, Mike Benson, has been busy travelling to Glasgow, London and Belfast, meeting colleagues from the study but also making links with their community partners, to link communities. At the moment, Ryedale is pursuing twinning links between young people in Yorkshire and Belfast.

Next steps: funders investing in organisational change instead of projects

The research carried out by Dr. Bernadette Lynch, and the subsequent workshops and surgeries, demonstrate that there is a role for funding bodies to support organisational change instead of projects, finding ways to help museums and galleries help themselves to connect with local communities through brokering mutually beneficial relationships. For example, by investing in organisational development and change through a ‘critical friends’ co-developed process, future funding can help museums and galleries to:

• Renegotiate or reaffirm their relationship with, and role within, civil society
• Understand their locality – the place in which they are located
• Broker creative, strategic partnerships and alliances in their local area

In developing engagement and participation in this way, museums and galleries should build an ongoing reflective practice, which will be an integral part of the collaborative process of effective change.