The Relevant Museum:
A Reflection on Sustainability

by Emlyn Koster

This article was published in Museum News May/June 2006

Perhaps the single most difficult task for the field in the 21st century is not to find more money, or more objects, or even more visitors, but to find the courage to embrace complexity in museums.[1]

                                       — Lois H. Silverman and Mark O’Neill

As news stories unfold and society seeks to understand the nature and significance of events, is the museum field going to adapt to a greater role in exploring the things that profoundly matter in the world?

With its raison d’être traditionally defined by collections, the museum field’s principal orientation has been toward the past. Although the number of exhibitions on contemporary subjects is growing,[2] museums would perform a more valuable public service—and uniquely so given their abundance, popularity, trustworthiness and specialized expertise—if they increased attention to the issues that confront their regions and the world, now and into the future.[3] For museums wishing and able to be concertedly relevant in these contexts, there also may well be attractive dividends in terms of institutional sustainability.

Importantly, an external orientation does not necessarily hinge on the results of public opinion surveys. Changes in the outlook of people and institutions, and new paradigms of accountability, have often been spurred by the articulation of a bold vision.

Questions arising from a sample of recent events
The terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, motivated many museums to become community forums for therapeutic conversation, to rethink their connectedness to diversity in their community, and to start a reference index of local and regional emergency contacts. Have such efforts been sustained?

The intense recent debate on natural versus divine origins of life, and in particular of human life, has been accompanied by a small number of new and touring exhibitions on evolution. Several museums with giant-screen theaters have come under pressure to solicit community input when they select films, possibly compromising the integrity of their missions. Have some filmmakers become irreversibly discouraged from pursuing bold educational goals for museum audiences? Do most museums actively avoid controversial topics?

From news of war-caused damage to cultural treasures to international controversies over the ownership of antiquities, the protocols that govern collections are changing. Through AAM/ICOM, the United States has recently joined other nations in embracing the international Blue Shield program, which arose from a 1954 convention in The Hague to protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict. Certainly there is new interest in the relative rights of nations, museums and individuals with respect to artifacts. Might recent events also bring about a change in visitor expectations?

The long-term future is often not adequately considered when governments formulate policies. The world faces a daunting array of challenges in school and lifelong education, human health and environmental stewardship. Intercultural tensions are escalating, and there are outbreaks of new infectious diseases. What niche should museums occupy in such matters? Are there compelling reasons for doing less than the maximum possible? Are there differing degrees of practical or desired responses in museums of natural history, human history, art, war, science and technology and those specifically for children? In comparison with other types of institutions, what are the relative strengths of museums as bridge-builders between various groups and the issues we all face? Do we in the museum field require a major news headline to oblige us to act? In this fast-changing world, is a new type of museum leadership philosophy emerging?

The profound changes that have lately occurred in aquariums and zoos, including an increase in conservation efforts for endangered species, offer an instructive analogue. It is now rare to see primates in small, barred concrete enclosures and fewer mammals are being trained to perform. These trends reflect a heightened sense of responsibility about the physical and mental welfare of animals in captivity. When Bengal tigers and mountain gorillas first appeared in museums, their natural populations were thriving. Today both are close to extinction. What becomes the interpretational responsibility of museums as the contents of display cases and dioramas outlive the last breathing representatives in the wild?

An advocacy seldom heeded
Ninety years ago at AAM’s conference in Washington, D.C., John Cotton Dana presented a paper entitled “Increasing Usefulness of  Museums.”[4] He elaborated on his prescient views that museums should be “life-enhancing institutions” and that “a museum is good only insofar as it is of use.” Another of Dana’s unequivocal statements was on the museum’s responsibility to fit the needs of its community.

The inward-looking culture that continued to prevail at museums became the focus of an AAM-commissioned critique in 1939.[5] In 1972 in Santiago and in 1989 at The Hague, ICOM declared museums to be “a powerful force for human development” and “places where the public can look for the meaning of the world around them.” Looking back, we should see these more as laudable aspirations than reflections of any widespread prevailing reality.[6] The late Stephen Weil’s distinguished career was dedicated to making museums matter.[7] He pointed to the attitudinal shifts during the 1970s and 80s when educators started to gain a foothold in shaping policy and strategy within AAM and posed an evocative question in one of AAM’s benchmark publications:
"How can museums—as multi-dimensional, socially responsible institutions with a tremendous capacity for bringing knowledge to the public and enriching all facets of  the human experience—help to nurture a humane citizenry equipped to make informed choices in a democracy and to address the challenges and opportunities of an increasingly global society?"[8]

At The Smithsonian Institution’s 150th anniversary symposium in 1995[9], Harold Skramstad issued this strong calling:
"In the world of the future, every institution, including a museum, must be judged on its distinctive ability to provide  value to society in a way that builds on unique institutional  strengths and serves unique community needs."

Stephen Weil spoke about the “success” or “failure” of museums in terms of mission advancement, not just survivability.[10] He stressed that museums need to distinguish their “outputs” from their “outcomes,” defined respectively as productivity versus externally valuable productivity.

From its synthesis of museum trends, Harvard University concluded that “the field has shifted from internally focused and collection-driven organizations to externally driven and market-driven organizations with greatly broadened stakeholders.”[11] But is there a significant difference in many museums between their philosophy and their results? AAM’s 2002 summary of its Museums & Community Initiative envisioned museums as better citizens, ideally at the center of civic life by leading collaborative dialogues.[12] As others have emphasized,[13] the new task of outreach is not simply a matter of trying to engage the community in what the museum wants to do. Rather the aim is a wholehearted externalization of the museum’s purpose and actions. This necessarily includes deeper thinking about audiences—who is visiting and who is not, and why?[14]

Relevancy and sustainability
Relevancy, although a popular word in discourse about museums, is seldom used with the full force of its definition, which is about relating to the matters at hand. Relevancy became a buzzword in the 1960s in relation to social concerns such as racial equality and world hunger.[15] Given that museums exist to be places for reflection and inspiration, the field is not justified in using this descriptor unless it is comfortable with and capable of tackling contemporary and consequential subject matter. Relevancy entails a comfort with controversy that, in turn, involves fostering an atmosphere where difficult questions can be broached and a variety of opinions expressed. Preferably, relevant museum experiences go beyond fostering an intellectual appreciation of their subject matter to stimulating new behaviors in their visitors.

At the close of the 20th century, Harold Skramstad expressed this view:
"Now is the time for the next great agenda of museum development in America. This agenda needs to take as its mission nothing less than to engage actively in the design and delivery of experiences that have the power to inspire and change the way people see the world and the possibility of their own lives. . . . This will not be an easy task. It will require changes in focus, organization, staffing, and funding for museums."[16]

The pursuit of relevancy can help museums achieve sustainability. The usual definition of sustainability is behavior that safeguards the well-being of future generations. It is less recognized that sustainability depends on each type of institution in society proactively doing its part now. The survival of a museum is far from guaranteed. A few have closed, many are struggling, and profound changes are afoot in the scale and interests of funding sources.

Relevancy supports sustainability in two major ways. The first is extrinsic to the museum and recognizes that a sustainable world depends upon organizations that exist for the common good. In the 1990s, “doing good and doing well” became a popular corporate phrase. The so-called Gaia philosophy is also pertinent in its contention that all organisms regulate the biosphere to the benefit of the whole. Humanity, as a strongly dominant influence on all other living things, must bear an immense share of the total responsibility.

The more intrinsic second way is articulated by the “triple bottom-line concept.” This calls for improving human and environmental conditions while also safeguarding financial health.[17] Public- and private-sector funders of museums are seeking a demonstrable return on their investments. This trend comes with “making a difference” and “value-add” language. It is increasingly common to frame expectations in terms of a particular societal or environmental problem that the proposed activity seeks to alleviate.

Given the increasing demands across society for government assistance, public funding of museums would seem to require obvious benefits. Causes are becoming more numerous and funding is becoming more competitive. In a triple bottom-line context, therefore, a museum’s pursuit of relevancy correlates with its eligibility for funding.

The impact that pursuing relevancy has on earned revenues is more of a mixed picture. Teachers look for museum programs to be aligned with the prevailing curriculum standards. What the broader public prefers in a museum’s offerings depends on the museum’s brand image and regional cultural norms.

Overcoming inertia
There appear to be several reasons why museums have been slow to embrace John Cotton Dana’s pioneering advocacy. These include the traditional focus on collections and the historical subject matter of exhibitions that feature them; a preoccupation with attendance; an aversion to controversy; private support that sustains traditional approaches; and a lack of momentum in the debate about a new paradigm for museums.

Attendance is a pervasive factor because it continues to be the most frequently used measure of a museum’s external worth and a principal source of operating revenue. In boardrooms, attendance increases are widely regarded as unquestioned success and respectively decreases as worrisome, and sometimes even as failure. Generally, museums view attendance in the same way the for-profit sector views the stock market: growth builds confidence; a decline erodes confidence.

Our field’s desire for record-breaking attendance is illustrated by the buzz over time-limited blockbuster exhibitions and their box-office performance.[18] In the new book Looking Reality in the Eye: Museums and Social Responsibility, a blockbuster is likened to an "addictive substance . . . the impact is fast and undeniable, but quickly dissolves in the quest for more, and there is never enough."[19]

Museums should aim for the largest possible audience as the fruit of their labors. The caveat, though, is that the desire to be popular must responsibly be equaled by a determination to be useful.[20] To conceive, design and offer experiences that are both engaging and worthwhile must surely be the museum field’s highest aim.

Funding sources and trends are also a strong influence on how a museum thinks and operates. Especially in art and history museums, the generosity of affluent patrons can be a powerful sustaining force. On the other hand, a science center may need to rely on a more varied and entrepreneurial portfolio of earned and contributed revenues. Science centers have also been cautioned that popularity may be insufficient as "a life preserver."[21] For all museum types government funding is generally on the decline and the increasingly competitive climate of foundation and corporate support comes with rising expectations of substantiated positive outcomes.

Transforming consciousness 
Nowadays, there are calls for community leaders to position themselves as activists, establishing and pursuing the social agenda of their organizations.[22] This parallels the conclusion of recent research into the core purpose of leadership, which incorporate Aristotle’s philosophy—namely, that leadership is about the harmonious pursuit of positive consequences in the world.[23] An organization’s journey from self-interest to the common good is preferably driven by a persistent desire to be outwardly beneficial. However, adverse publicity or financial pressure can also force the transformation.[24]

These principles of transformation in consciousness apply to museums pursuing increased relevancy. Certain museums, although a very small number, were founded with a socially responsible orientation because they exist on sites where heart-wrenching events occurred.[25] For all other museums, the required journey is a holistic effort that involves values, leadership, mission, positioning, partnerships, approaches and audience.

It is essential, though, that there be a clear distinction between effectiveness and efficiency. Using the metaphor of a vehicle on a journey, efficiency is about maximizing the miles traveled per gallon without breakdowns. Effectiveness is about the value of the destination. Stephen Covey reminds us that efficiency means "doing things right" and effectiveness means "doing the right things."[26] One can also think in terms of climbing the proverbial ladder of success but the first decision must be which wall to lean the ladder against. Low efficiency undermines effectiveness and, efficient or not, a purposeless organization is inconsequential. An organization’s mission, vision and strategy depends on clarity around, respectively, why does it exist?, where is it heading?, and how does it get there? In turn, this effectiveness depends on high efficiency with the organization’s fuel—its intellectual, financial and physical resources.

A team at Stanford University has developed a procedural guideline for "social entrepreneurship" with five signal behaviors: 1) adopt a mission to create and sustain social value; 2) recognize and relentlessly pursue opportunities to advance that mission; 3) continuously innovate, adapt and learn; 4) act boldly without being limited to the resources at hand; and 5) be accountable for constituency outcomes.[27]

Relevancy progress indicators
Whether a museum is new, renewing or simply evolving over time, this checklist can be used to monitor progress towards a goal of relevancy.

1. Is your museum’s mission statement explicit about the way(s) in which the institution aspires to be of tangible social and/or environmental value?
2. Has your museum conducted market research to benchmark its optimal niche and then used the results to arrive at a distinctive brand promise that informs all of its advertising, communication, sales and development activities?
3. Does your museum periodically assess its mission in relation to changes in the external environment so as to identify better ways to direct its expertise and resources to areas of beneficial learning by the primary audience(s)?
4. Does the demographic composition of your museum’s governance, staff and volunteers reflect the surrounding region and the particular nature of your institution’s work?
5. Does your museum actively merge its thinking about new exhibitions, programs and outreach with external advice and review the evaluation of their impacts?
6. Does your museum actively research and pursue entrepreneurial opportunities to advance its mission?
7. Does your museum have an accountability framework measuring both internal efficiency and external effectiveness?
8. Does your museum monitor and apply research findings in self-guided and mediated learning styles, and in allied and competitive fields such as formal education and other learning experiences?
9. Are your museum’s funding sources diversifying to include an increasing number of long-term, mission-aligned investors and partnerships with both the private and public sectors?
10. Does editorial coverage of your museum comment on its nature and purpose in gradually different ways? Does it perceive the museum as concerned about its usefulness as well as its popularity?

Putting theory into action: museums of various types
To further illustrate the relevancy-driven concept, here is a list of suggestions regarding content for museums of various types. Echoing an earlier caveat, it does not suppose that relevancy-driven thinking is absent from the museum field, either in the U.S. or around the world. Rather, the intention here is to encourage a broader range of thinking in each museum type.

Putting Theory Into Action: The Example of the Liberty Science Center
Science centers have the potential to be the most nimble and least place-centric of museum types because they lack the extent of collections and the associated conservation and research activities that typify a traditional museum.[28] Science centers began during the 1960s in Seattle, San Francisco and Toronto in a movement spurred by the looming importance of science and technology and as NASA’s Apollo missions enabled humanity to see planet Earth from afar for the first time. However, they have struggled to be seen as major players in educational and workforce needs and to be resources for all ages and stages of learning.

U.S. census data shows that New Jersey has the highest per capita need for science and technology degrees and the highest average household income. It also contains some of the highest and lowest qualities of public schools. The counties in northeast New Jersey that surround Liberty Science Center and New York’s boroughs across the lower Hudson River are highly diverse. It was in this regional geography that New Jersey business and government leaders developed Liberty Science Center, where the author is president and CEO. The chosen themes were health, invention and the environment, each to be amplified by exhibition, program and theater experiences. After a $68-million capital campaign, it opened in 1993 to great fanfare, instantly becoming the state’s most visited museum and soon becoming a recommended destination in guides to New York. But then financial alarm bells rang and a structural deficit was in urgent need of fixing.

Three years after opening, a review of zip-code attendance data from counties in a 100-mile radius revealed an unacceptable under-representation of students from Jersey City, the host community, a designated at-risk school district. Less than 2 percent of the city’s public school enrollment of 32,000 used Liberty Science Center. As a result of a proactive statewide partnership program, the figure increased to 60 percent of enrollment. Under the terms of state- funded, whole-year service agreements, the center provides onsite, offsite and online resources to participating schools as well as professional development for teachers and educational opportunities for the families of all district students. What started as the probing of attendance data became a transformation of consciousness within Liberty Science Center.[29]

At the center’s 1989 groundbreaking there was anticipation of doubling its size within a decade to meet a growing demand for its learning and teaching resources. Twelve years after the 1993 opening, a $104-million facility expansion, exhibition renewal and program enhancement project got underway. Seven years in planning, the project is seen by the New Jersey state government as tackling pressing needs in science education, workforce development, and public literacy. The state’s funding and financing formula enabled this project to proceed while the center receives multi- year commitments to its Connections: Our Community, Our World campaign from corporations, foundations, and individuals and as appropriations and grants are made by the U.S. Department of Education, National Science Foundation, NASA, and The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. That a private, nonprofit corporation has received major capital funding from a state government while continuing to receive annual contractual state funds for systemic service to designated at-risk districts demonstrates that relevance and sustainability are indeed intertwined.

New exhibitions as well as a new center for science learning and teaching will occupy the completely refreshed 295,000- square-foot building.[30] At a time in this nation’s history when there is prominent attention to society’s dependence on science,[31] all of Liberty Science Center’s content is expressly designed to be what people need to learn, live and work in the surrounding region. Expert advisory panels have been involved in the development of each new content area.

• “Our Hudson Home” is an exhibition about how stewardship of the local river and estuary requires understanding of their complex habitats, and of the human and commercial activities they support.
• “Skyscraper!: Achievement and Impact” explores the design and engineering of tall buildings and their environments, and how these are evolving to better address human needs.
• “Infection Connection” is about how individual and collective choices determine the impact of infectious diseases on the health of people around the world.
• “Communication” is about how continual development and applied ingenuity help us learn from the world around us and create ways of communicating with one another.
• “Breakthroughs” is about how the convergence of science, technology and society necessitates the public’s understanding of new discoveries and milestones and the impact these have on people’s lives.
• With an assortment of live animals, “Eat and Be Eaten” is about how species evolve appearances and behaviors that help them avoid detection from predators and as prey. And
• “I Explore,” for pre-schoolers and their caregivers, exposes young minds to the scientific method and to science as a human endeavor, as well as enabling them to discover who they are, where they are, and what they can do.
• In a new “Exhibit Commons” concept, visitors and others anywhere else around the world will be invited to submit ideas for altering and adding content to the current exhibitions.

The Center for Science Learning and Teaching will reshape how science education is perceived in the region.[32] The new facilities, unlike anything available at schools, will be a gateway where students and teachers will be exposed to scientists and science content in a manner that will stimulate learning and career choices. There will also be a theater where students have videoconferences with operating room teams at nearby hospitals as cardiac bypass, kidney transplant and neurosurgery takes place.

Heading into its mid-2007 reopening, Liberty Science Center’s mission is to be an innovative learning resource for lifelong exploration of nature, humanity and technology, strengthening communities and inspiring global stewardship. Informed annually by scans of opportunities and challenges, both internally and externally, strategic planning looks a decade into the future. This is also informed by an extensive analysis of how to maximize operating revenues upon reopening and beyond.

Conclusion
Each museum has a choice of overall direction and external contexts from an array of possibilities.

It is clear that the world—on local, regional and global scales—has myriad opportunities for improvement as well as challenges to try to overcome. That these correspond to the subject areas of the different types of museums that have evolved over past centuries is also clear.

Each museum can choose the degree to which it will increase its external orientation to address contemporary and future matters, both locally and globally. Museums that become more relevant are likely to attract more robust funding and therefore become more sustainable, valued institutions. There are factors at play that both encourage and discourage this proposition. Greater currency of content raises the possibility of controversy, and controversy could trigger a mood of retreat. But another, arguably more attractive perspective is that the museum profession can make an increasingly bold and supportable contribution by helping society understand and improve our collective future through different approaches and extensive collaboration. AAM’s centennial is an apt moment for museums to reflect upon their choice in such matters.

Acknowledgments
The author expresses appreciation to Mary Case of Qm2, Al DeSena of NSF and Connie Claman, Dalya Ewais, Wayne LaBar, Jeff Osowski, Elizabeth Romanaux, Jonathan Ullman and Khairah Walker of Liberty Science Center for accepting his invitation to comment on a near-final form of this article.  

Emlyn Koster is president and CEO of Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, N.J.

References