It seems that it is a standard understanding that musingplaces – museum & art galleries – occupy some ‘high ground’ or other. The notion of their existence carries the imprimatur of ‘social good’ or them being a ‘civilizing factor’ and at least a quasi academic institution if not mainstream academe.
When it comes to ‘peopling’ these institutions the qualifications to lead them becomes ambiguous to a certain extent. It is even more so in the age of managerialism where domain knowledge is all too often down played.
It appears that in theory the subjects staff in musingplaces study isn't all that important. Nonetheless, most people do go on to do a professional qualification as their work demands an expanding knowledge base as new technologies roll out. In practice museum people understand that if they wish to specialise in a particular area – fine art, social history, zoology, education – then it is advisable to have a relevant degree.
However, many musingplace people ‘rise through the ranks’ without formal academic or professional qualifications. They hold their positions because they have experience 'on the ground' and have developed a skills base. Quite simply, they have grown into the institution and are thus of value to their institution – have skills and experience that may or may not translate to another institution.
In regard to professional qualifications, most people holding a professional or management position in a musingplace would have a postgraduate professional qualification. It could be a certificate, a diploma, a masters degree or a research qualification such as a research masters or PhD.
Mostly, research qualifications require students to hold an undergraduate degree but currently many universities recognise people with valid experience as research candidates. In this context there is potential for musingplaces and formal academic institutions to develop close alliances if there are mutual advantages in doing so.
In musingplaces, the dividing line between the academically qualified and dilettantism is open to discussion. In contrast, in other academic institutions, universities for instance, the question of qualifications is clear cut. Increasingly in universities a PhD is the ‘career qualification’ for academics. In contrast, in musingplaces, even those with research agendas, dilettantism is often tolerated at almost every level – sometimes with positive and other times with negative outcomes.
Arguably, musingplaces self constrain their funding levels in the light of competition for research funding becoming more aggressive – confrontational even. Their propensity to adopt an insulated and isolationist position of self sustained 'cultural island' is clearly losing any credibility it may have had. It is interesting however that musingplaces may well be better placed to take on more esoteric research, that is if they were to have the researchers, team workers, research alliances and networks with the ‘academic credibility’.
Universities are increasingly disinclined to take on research that is unlikely to deliver entrepreneurial opportunities to the institution. When the funding is available for more esoteric research, arguably, musingplaces are well enough placed to participate in this work if not lead it. Without a doubt, they can offer ‘bang for buck’ in regard to outcomes that is not defined by medium to short term fiscal performance indicators. However, without strong alliances outside musingplaces – museums and art galleries – are likely to be allowed lower order research opportunities.
There is a kind of academic schism in evidence between musingplaces and tertiary education instructions – especially those with research aspirations. It is contingent upon musingplaces to make moves to engage with research agendas and where required lift their game. The underlying difficulty here being that universities, as research institutions, need to assert their authority and precedence in order to maintain their funding levels and attract students. It is a matter of survival. In doing so they rely quite heavily upon scholarly peer review processes and quite blatantly they are invoked. In contrast musingplaces are less inclined to engage in such peer review processes – and even less inclined to be participating in providing professional opportunities for scholarship.
Contrastingly, while many musingplaces maintain energetic research activity there are those that regard research as a second order requirement if they get to be directly involved at all. Peer review is less of a concern as the same order of academic competition does not seem to apply in museums and art galleries as it does within and between universities and other institutions of ‘higher learning’. Nonetheless, none of this is ever a black and white matter.
Cost centre museum and art gallery operations typically rely upon a kind of routine line item funding level that is in essence non-competitive which in turn tends to support status quo program delivery. Cost centres typically cannot afford to imagine expansion– at least not dynamic expansion– or reinvention. However cost centres are likely to come under more intense scrutiny and 'Ivory Towers' are increasingly likely to be dismantled.
In a 21st C context the level of competition for funding, corporate and government, for research in both musingplaces and other academic institutions is likely to increase to intense. Given that universities are used to being competitive, and depend upon their competitiveness, they will be entering the race with distinct advantages. Many musingplaces will be handicapped by their own complacency, their self accessed inadequacies and their inbuilt conservatism. The two competitors are hugely unequal and by and large in the case of many musingplaces, by self-definition.
Nonetheless musingplaces and academic research institutions are increasingly likely to be in competition for funding, especially research funding, as the socio-political circumstances and technical environment they operate within demand new standards, set new measures of performance and undergo the kind of scrutiny hitherto unimagined. Musing is increasingly likely to be called upon to articulate the tangible outcomes it has to offer– that is pragmatic value!
SUSTAINABILITY VERSUS THE STATUS QUO
Almost by definition the status quo is unsustainable. When looking at the status quo in musingplaces we are likely to find one brand or other of a hierarchical and self contained operational model. While being self-contained rarely, if ever, are these hierarchical operations self-sufficient depending as they do upon external recurrent funding – and almost exclusively so.
Alternatively, we might imagine an operational model for musingplaces that can be described as "rhizomic" in an attempt to describe, metaphorically, a theoretic operational model that allows for multifaceted, complex and non-hierarchical management. That is, an operation where information can find multidimensional openings and exit points that interface organically with other networks.
Champions of ‘rhizomic modeling’ are primarily interested in breaking down status quo ranked staff structures. That is, a kind of class structure in administrative and organisational structures that are exploitative and discriminatory. Rhizomic modellings allows for organic self-organisation of programming and management structures but are nonetheless disciplined. The model begins to question and interrogate the relationships between evidence and belief systems – and likewise between myth and allegory.
The rhizomic model affords the opportunity for design possesses and methodologies to be more collaborative and cooperative in ways that allows the collective effort to be more intensely quality focused.
A rhizome is a fleshy plant stem that are designed to grow horizontally and pervasively and to function as a subterranean food-storing organ protected by the ground surface. In botany rhizomes have fibers, nodes, buds, and tiny shoots that ultimately reflect the rhizome’s pattern of life – and reveal the dynamism of its life force.
Unlike single stemmed plants, rhizomic plants are very resilient, more able to be transplanted, less prone to annihilation and more sustainable given their inbuilt systematic survival mechanisms. They offer a metaphoric model for musingplaces in a 21st C paradigm where 'climate change' is not likely to be confined to geographic circumstances. Rhizomic connectivity and sustainability is largely about making informed choices between one approach to interfacing an institutions with its Community of Ownership and Interest.
It is impossible to read everything and speak to everyone. Therefore, institutions need to be connected to people, and networked with like institutions, that are trustworthy in order to bring the most relevant resources to its attention. The better the connections, the more relevant the outcome that can be delivered. ‘Connectedness’ is the code word for ‘smartly’ connected. When the connections that are established and maintained, it is possible to keep a balance between:
- Quality vs. quantity: Too many connections may lead to distraction and with too few there is the risk of irrelevance;
- Diversity vs. conformity: Diversity is a critical element of innovation and conformity may better serve security over development;
- Open vs. closed: Having unique connections that no one else has can enhance a position while a closed network can lead to an enhanced focus and attention to detail.
Standard understandings that musingplaces occupy the ‘high ground’ is increasingly open to challenge. Even the notion of their existence demonstrates some kind of ‘civilizing factor’ is open to conjecture in a 21st C context.*
No comments:
Post a Comment