April 29-May 1 I attended the American Association of Museum’s Annual Meeting and MuseumExpo in Minneapolis. It’s a huge event, with more than 3000 attendees. (Remember “museum” includes zoos, aquariums, history museums, etc.) It’s also a long-running show. The first meeting was something like 106 years ago.
Coming from a performing arts background, it’s fascinating to see what’s up in the museum world. But the main hooks for me were the conference theme (Creative Community) and the fact that some museum types asked me to be on a panel with them discussing, you guessed it, community engagement. I’ll write about our panel and its aftermath (we plan to set up an on-going project) in another post. I wanted today to talk about one session in particular.
I dutifully made note of all the sessions that had community and/or engagement in the titles or descriptions. Interestingly, there were so many, I could not get to all of them. However, the first one I attended was so important for me that I’ve got to do two posts on it.
I attended a session called “Engagement Tools for Building Creative Communities, Placemaking, and Partnerships” presented by Candace Tangorra Matelic and Candace Lee Heald. Dr. Heald spoke about her New Bedford, MA program, AHA!. (Art, History, Architecture) It’s a free Second Thursday arts and culture night that began in 1999 and has become a highly successful program supporting the creative economy, cultural tourism, and a plain old healthier New Bedford. They have put together a “lessons learned” booklet that would be helpful for replicating the project. I will try to find out if there is an online version of it. If so, I’ll share it with you.
But the real knockout punch for me was Candace Tangorra Matelic’s presentation on tools for engagement. In particular, she shared two lists that captured much that I have been trying to say for years about what community engagement is and is not. The first I will give below. (I asked and got permission to do so.)
| Community Engagement IS: | Community Engagement IS NOT: |
| Identifying and addressing what the community cares about. | Identifying what the community can do for your organization. |
| Doing things that really matter (e.g., activities focused on building better communities). | Token exhibits and programs about or with community groups. |
| Establishing long-term relationships and partnerships with other community groups. | Occasional stakeholder input meetings or an annual visitor survey. |
| Working with community groups to plan and offer your programs and activities, and sharing the control, acknowledgement, and proceeds. | Continuing to control and run your programs and activities, yet expecting other community organizations to participate and donate. |
| Getting involved in community activities outside of your organization. | Expecting reciprocity for contributions to the community outside of your organization. |
Developed by Candace Tangorra Matelic, CTM Professional Services. Source: “New Roles for Small Museums.” (Click on article title halfway down the page.) In Toolkit for Small Museums. Nashville, TN: Altamira Press. 2011.
This is a succinct statement of the essence of substantive engagement. It (the left-hand column) requires an alteration of mindset on the part of organizations that are attempting to engage.
Her second chart, comparing audience development and community engagement, I will save for a later post.
Engage!
Doug
The last two rows of boxes seem to contradict each other. Every organization must continue to run its own programs and activities; failing to do so is an abdication of responsibility and mission. When two or more groups attempt to participate in a collaboration, there must be a clear decision-making process, and a way of resolving conflicts in that process, which eventually comes down to a person or persons who will have to make the call in a difficult situation.
Without the expectation that all community groups involved will participate and donate yet retain responsibility for their own contributions, any collaboration will fall apart, because every issue that arises will be a problem outside the participating organizations with no clear sense of who is responsible for problem-solving. Unless participating organizations can expect reciprocity from each other, and a mutual benefit, why should they collaborate in the first place?
I can see where the box referring to reciprocity could be confusing. I believe what Dr. Matelic is saying in all of her points is that there is a need to have the view of being a member of the community, willing to contribute for the common good. There is sometimes a tendency for arts organizations to be a bit parsimonious in relationships with non-arts organizations.
I appreciate Mrs. Tangorra Matelic’s approach to community engagement. I’ll pass it along on my own blog. But I do disagree with her definition of audience development vs. community engagement (“Comparing Audience Development and Community Engagement”, http://www.transformorg.com/tools.html). I see both as being complementary. Maybe we could debate this at some point in time.
We’ll have the chance. I’m going to do a post on that chart in the near future.