As all of this is grinding to a halt (I hope), I fear that many of us in
museum land haven't really learned the lessons of this unfortunate episode.
As the editorial writer at the Washington Post points out, this is not
about politicians dictating the content of museum exhibits, or what history
really is, or who makes history, or who's history it is .... etc.  The
staff at Air & Space (and perhaps all of us) have learned the *very* hard
way that museums exist as institutions to serve a public audience that's
wider than other historians, scientists, exhibit designers (i.e., the
people who work in museums).  One of the things about this situation that
interests me is that the staff at Air & Space simply approached this
exhibition as they have countless others (and as many staff in other
museums across the country approach exhibition projects) -- they decided
which messages were important to them (and to other experts), they
apparently sought feedback from key audiences, but paid little attention to
it, and remained concerned (almost to the end) only with how this
exhibition would play in the community of scholars to whom they feel their
primary allegiance.  Most of us do pretty much the same thing -- luckily
our exhibitions usually explore topics that most people (in the rest of the
world) don't really care much about, so the worst that happens is that we
just bore or confuse people (rather than really offend and insult them).
 
Nina Jensen observed this morning that:
 
>We have to understand that if the conversation begins with seeking and getting
>>approval for an existing script without first finding out what is important
>to >different groups, audience constituencies will come to the table already
>>feeling that their point of view is not being heard.
 
Exactly.  And we've seen what happens when one takes that approach when
dealing with highly sensitive and controversial subject matter.  I came to
my career in museums because I was interested in how people learn in such a
setting, and I can't imagine developing an exhibition without involving
audiences (meaningfully) in the development process from the very
beginning.  I know that exhibitions developed in this way are always better
than they would have been otherwise, and they are better from *everyone's*
perspective -- experts, kids, adults, museum staff, your grandmother, and
the people who live next door.
 
Thanks, Nina, for mentioning "Getting to Yes" -- it's a terrific and very
helpful little book (it also comes in handy when dealing with argumentative
co-workers).
 
_______________________________
 
Patty McNamara
Manager, Evaluation & Project Development
The Adler Planetarium
1300 S. Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60605                     voice:  312/322-0822
[log in to unmask]          fax:  312/322-9909