Ahoy, Museum-L-ers!

I'd like to open a thread, if I may, and hear other people's opinions and
experiences.

The latest issue of "Curator" magazine contains a review by David M. Kahn,
Executive Director of the Brooklyn Historical Society, of the book "The New
York Historical Society: Lessons from One Nonprofit's Long Struggle for
Survival" (by Kevin M. Guthrie).  The NYHS, as many of you know, has faced a
series of financial and administrative crises over the last couple of
decades, and is now in serious danger of being dissolved.

My query, however, has less to do with the particular situation of the NYHS,
than with a more general, philosophical issue.  In his review, Kahn writes:

        "Perhaps one of the greatest failures of successive management
        teams at the NYHS is that they have consistently conceptualized
        and represented the institution as a great repository, thereby
        hanging its fate on the richness of the collections. By now,
        one would think that somebody might have caught on that almost
        no one really seems to care how important the collections are--
        other than scholars and specialists."

This passage caught my eye, for The Field Museum has been trying for the
past several years to "get our science on the floor" and explain the
importance of our collections and research to the public.  (The Field Museum
is a major natural history research institute, with some 50
curator-researchers and over 20 million objects in collection.  Less than 1%
of our collections are on public display; the percentage of curators on
display is even lower.  :)

The rationale for this effort is generally put in terms of "support":  the
public will support us -- with tax dollars, with donations, etc. -- only if
they understand what we do and why it is important.

We are encouraged by the overwhelming popularity of our Members' Night -- an
annual "open house" when visitors can come behind-the-scenes and meet with
researchers in their labs and offices, see what we're working on, ask
questions, etc.

However, surveys with the general public tell a much different story.  Large
majorities are not even aware there *is* a "behind-the-scenes," don't know
what's back there, and don't much care.  They have no idea that we have
researchers and research collections, and when presented with the
possibility, many flatly reject it.

Thus (at long last) my question: should museums attempt to explain their
inner workings to an apparently disinterested public?  Does our audience
have the "right" to know what goes on behind the scenes?  A "need" to know?
A desire to know?  Have other museums tackled these issues before?  Has any
museum attempted this sort of self-explanation in exhibits or programs; and
if so, what were the results?

Thanks for your indulgence.  I look forward to reading some interesting posts.



Eugene W. Dillenburg
Coordinator, Special Projects
Exhibits Department
The Field Museum of Natural History
Chicago, Illinois  60605-2496
V: (312) 922-9410 x636
F: (312) 922-6973
E: [log in to unmask]

"Never pay more than minimum wage for a shirt."

                                -- Bruce Elliott