Touching Objects

"Sentiment" is a funny word....

It's first definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary online is "an attitude, thought, or judgment prompted by feeling."

In this dictionary definition, that means emotion.  Emotion, however, can be provoked by physical sensation, such as touch.  Touching objects therefore lead to the experience of both the physicality of the object, an emotion, an invoked memory, and additional thoughts -- all within the same tangled neural network.  


A web of emotion, memory, sensation, experience, and conceptualization if you will.


At this time of year, the word "sentimentality" also comes to mind.  The holidays put many of us into a state of heightened emotionalism.  Movies such as "It's a Wonderful Life" or "A Christmas Story" are one way that many people become sentimental in December.  Yet, sentimentality has a negative connotation.   Its Merriam-Webster definition is "resulting from feeling rather than reason or thought."  Feeling and thinking should go together; they do not have to presented as binary opposites.  Touching objects link "sentiment" the noun with "sentimentality" the noun, but the net results are so different! 

Speaking of "touching...."  In fencing, there is sentiment de fer -- the fencer's understanding of the tangible aspects of blade positioning, control, and interaction with their opponent's weapon.  This term also refers to the instinctual understanding of what feels right to do within the context of a bout (situated knowing, anyone?).  Here's another definition of "sentiment de fer" which focuses more on the tangible, but emphasizes the importance of sensation.   Thus from this example, it is can be said that sentiment is not necessarily something to be scorned.  It is a way of knowing.


(We could have some extended fun with sentience and "women's ways of knowing" but really, I'm not trying to have an orgy of post-modern reflexivism here, really...)

Sentiment also connects past to present.  It is not only an old-fashioned term, but it implies remembering the past.   For example, consider the article "5 Surprising Objects with Sentimental Value" from RealSimple Magazine. As the introduction to the piece says, "Sometimes an object is just an object, and sometimes it’s so much more. Five writers describe the sentimental value within the everyday things they cherish."   These stories reveal how the physical objects manifest the memories and emotion of a life well-lived.

As so many people rush around this week, acquiring more objects to give to others as expressions of their feelings, consider the power of things to convey sentiment. 

Think as well on how many objects do not carry much emotions and memories at all.  How many things do we need, cherish, sentimentalize?

Then, please, think of others who have few of the things they need.   Consider a passing on something that is more a sentiment than an object, but will touch the lives of others in a positive way.  Here's a suggestion of one way.  Click here for additional possibilities.

So, sentimentality can be a powerful way this season to reflect on the past, embody the present, and connect to a better future. 

Happy Holidays!

Learning in the Museum prompts thought....

 

I adore George Hein.

Or, more correctly, I adore Shari Tishman.

Who are these people?

Hein is author of Learning in the Museum (1998), whose chapter on "Educational Theory" I re-read when I took museum education and whose name keeps cropping up in my research.  In this chapter Hein builds his theory of four major types of learning theory/educational philosophy/pedagogical approaches: Didactic/Expository, Stimulus-Response, Discovery, Constructivism. These are arranged around an axis* of how a learner learners (incrementally/built by learner) and where knowledge exists (outside/inside the learner). Then Hein does an elegant thing that applying this model to how learning in the museum would occur....

Shari Tishman uses Hein in her courses on "Museums and Learning" and "Object-Based Learning" as an organizing construct, but she actually makes the learning of Hein's ideas a constructivist exercise -- brilliant (and fun, too)!   Hein is deeply embedded in me, because of these classroom experiences.

I knew Hein, because I had experienced Hein.  It's an embodied knowing from an Understanding by Design experience in the classroom.

Also, Hein's comments on Discovery Learning prompted me to continue the cycle of self-reflection and to return to the blog in order to work through ideas that have been simmering (boiling?) for 15 years now. 

I think that I have been working with Discovery Learning, with a Constructivist bent.**   Hein defines Discovery Learning as "learning is an active process, that learners undergo changes as they learn, that they interact with material to be learned more fundamentally than only absorbing it, that they somehow change the way their minds work as they learn.... Active learning is often translated into physical activity associated with learning...Physical interaction with the world, with the requirement that the learner take an active part in the process... can lead to situations that offer a range of options, which require the learner to think." (pp. 30-31). Active learning and the physical combine -- think about this and the connection to brain-based research.

Hein goes on to say that this action is primarily mental, not physical, because "monotonous repetitive physical activity" is not "minds-on" (p. 31). Hmmm... I think I'll have some arguments with this part, as walking labyrinths do seem to stimulate creativity.

Finally, "since museums, unlike schools, value objects and learning from objects, discovery learning seems a natural approach for these institutions" (p. 31). Thus, studying museums provides insight for other learning settings.

Hein says that a limitation of Discovery Learning is that if tries to force a learner to reach pre-ordained conclusions without learner input -- this distinguishes the approach from constructivism, presumably. However, this also seems to posit that the discovery itself is an object (a concrete item of knowledge, as in "there you have struck a rock"). I would propose that the experience provided by the discovery learning is not to reproduce the Discovery itself, but to create understanding at the core of that learning. It is the replication of the experience, not the recreation of the data, that is important. The experience is transferrable and connects to other experience.

Hein points to the importance of the DOING with STUFF: a well-articulated theory of how to produce object-based learning in a kinesthetic environment is what we need. And it should include actual pedagogy, too.   This approach is a perfect match for the museum environment.  Imagine if we could produce this type of learning in a face to face or virtual classroom as well.  Hence, the subtitle to this blog -- where all this learning is interconnected....

Thank you, Hein and Tishman!




*not evil!
** I would say I am a Discovery-Constructivist hybrid, with some Didactic moments thrown in for good measure.  Use what works, yes?!

Curators and "Others"

There was an interesting discussion at our breakfast table yesterday about the nature of curators and the role of expertise.

While curators are not well-represented in this house (population: none), the debates about cultural authority are. Probably the result of too much post-modern, post-colonial, Foucaultian training in anthropology, education, museum studies, and even law, the nature of expertise comes up in conversation not infrequently around here.  This time we were playing with the nature of authority as represented by the curator stereotype.

To wit: do expert curators a role to play in the future of museums as the sole voice of authority?

In the Web 2.0 participatory world, the answer may be "no."

For an educator, however, expertise does have a role to play. After all, if everyone already knows everything, then why have school? Stick a diploma in someone's hand and send them out into the world. In a Web 2.0 world, everyone participates and the crowd is supposed to be wise, collectively. Yet as studies have shown, children don't know as much as they think they do, even about the Web 2.0 world (of which they are supposed to be Digital Natives), and that people often overestimate their capabilities.  Someone who knows something needs to speak up, and be heard.

This expert role in museums has traditionally been that of curator. Not of education department or anyone else. But the curatorial information flow traditionally has been one-way. How to manage the expertise?

Added to these considerations are readings about NAGPRA and "cultural property." NAGPRA represents in part a way to reclaim curatorial authority over items removed from the home culture by a "superior" entity in a power-dynamic that was at the time inherently skewed. Items of cultural patrimony are to be repatriated when they meet certain conditions (such as colonial exploitation).  Knowledge and power -- as described in Foucault's Archeology of Knowledge -- are conflated in the person of the curatorial expert and the institution which appoints the curator, an institution that is hegemonically empowered on the global stage and displays the objects gained from the cultures of "others"

In the readings about NAGPRA are two diametrically opposed positions presented by
Durrans, “Museums, Representation and Cultural Property,” Anthropology Today, 
and
Lowry, “Cultural Property: A Museum Director’s Perspective,” International Journal of Cultural Property, 1998

Durrans was wrangling with the concept that museums represent the cultural hegemony of that institution and its surrounding culture – that it speaks to its own cultural audience.  This hegemonic power is not shared, and thus we need a reflexive approach that is multivocal and works on multiple levels and spaces – probably in multiple areas at multiple times – about the sharing of information about the objects.  Thus, curators may have a role, but not the only role.

Lowry presents more problems for me.  He argues that art transcends the concepts of cultural property and therefore beyond culturally-based issues of history, politics, and law.  To quote Lowry:


By "works of art," I mean those objects, such as paintings, drawings,
photographs, and freestanding sculpture, that were created as separate and
independent forms. What is important about works of art, whether or not
they are considered to be cultural property, is that they must be understood
first and foremost within the ontological context of art, not jurisprudence,
national significance, or UNESCO Conventions.

Does this mean that art transcends all?  Who defines something as art?  By whose standards?  It seems that Lowry implies only curators have sufficient expertise to make an argument about art.  And, that art cannot be claimed as a cultural product, and therefore not property nor patrimony, and cannot be reclaimed by the original owners, because art is transcendent.  This argument seems paternalistic in its claim that the big western museum is entitled to keep famous artworks because this museum is  creating interest in the art and the other (less powerful but place of origin) country's museum cannot possibly do this and therefore the big Western (post-) colonial power gets to keep it…

My best working definition of art is something that has been created by human agency and is called such.  It seems I disagree with Nelson Goodman and the art aesetheticians.   Everything is made somewhere by someone and is a cultural product.   This includes art.


Art seems to the lightning rod here.  Aptly so.

More than one person I know has commented on how art museums have galleries upon galleries of "western" art, and then lump all of the world's cultures into another room, and one that generally does not have any contemporary examples, at that. This means that those producers of art are depicted as frozen in time and, by extension, evolutionary growth as well.   These "Others" are not equals and do not share in the exchange of information, nor retain control of their own material culture.  Seems I'm on the Durrans side of the argument, but really, Durrans still seems to be discussing the same side as Lowry -- it's still Eurocentric and does not change the power dynamic of curatorial authority.  For a view from a different perspective, try Michel-Rolph Trouillot or another native anthropologist.

Western museums are the products of a society that produced not only upper-class noblesse oblige and patronage for the arts but also Social Darwinism on a global stage.  Thus there is a conflict between "patrimony" and "paternalism"  when it comes to objects and repatriation.

If one takes a central tenet of cultural anthropology that members of a culture are experts of their own lives, and then add to that the ideas of Participatory Museums, then shared authority makes sense.
This seems to be the more logical response and application of the postmodern critique. 

So, with shared authority is there expertise?  Depends on whom you consider expert, and the conditions under which they share knowledge.   Today it seems appropriate to allow a variety of voices to speak.   This means curatorial experts should be present, but not the only voice -- truly multivocalic discourse.

Sharing the knowledge may mean sharing the stuff.  By allowing claims of cultural property and repatriating items, including art, shifts the balance of power and allows greater participation by all.

"The movement continuum "

Time for recess?  Too much turkey?

This item from the ASCD Smart Brief seems relevant.  The piece does a nice job of presenting the different positions on movement in the classroom (pun intended!).

Some schools view physical activity as superfluous to learning, others see it as an integral part of the learning process, and the rest fall somewhere in between. These views dictate where a school lies on the "movement continuum," explains ASCD Healthy School Communities Director Sean Slade. In his recent Whole Child Blog post, Slade explores the continuum, the benefits of integrating movement into the school day, and ideas for incorporating physical activity into a range of lessons. Read the full blog post.

Brain-Based Research, Understanding by Design, and Museum Education -- or, What I Learned at Learning and the Brain....

Last Friday (November 18, 2011) I attended a pre-conference workshop at the Boston Learning and the Brain Conference.  The workshop was Jay McTighe and Judy Wills' "Instruction and Curriculum for 21st Century Brains."

The talk was an integration of the principles of Understanding by Design (UbD) and Brain-Based Research. In other words, how to design student learning based on how brains learn.

While the information is still "consolidating" in my own brain -- and I'm still trying to figure out how to apply McTighe and Wills' talk to how museums work with visitors -- two things did capture my attention and lead me to make connections between their work and museum education.

1) "The video game model"

A main component of Wills' portion of the presentation was that video games create intrinsically-motivated learners.

How do they do that? Because the basic design of the game and the nature of the gamer interact to produce behavior-reinforcing feel-good chemicals in the brain (dopamine). Dopamine is something the brain seeks. Through the process of being rewarded (through dopamine-release) or not, behaviors become patterned, memory is stored, and neural networks develop. [Ok, this is a vast reduction of what Dr. Wills was saying -- and she was drastically simplifying!] As Wills said, "The brain seeks patterns and pleasure."

Video games create situations in which the gamer gains pleasure.
Video games:
--challenge each player at the individual's level
-- provide immediate feedback
--reward success with greater challenge
-- provide frequent feedback on incremental progress throughout play.
Video gamers:
--buy into the goal
--persevere through challenge, despite an 80% failure rate
--use immediate feedback to improve
--consult resources for help
--will work hard for the pleasure of going to higher levels of play.

Anyway, for classroom instruction and for online learning, making the experience more like a video game should improve learning and instruction.

Would this be true of exhibit experiences and museum education I wonder? How would we do this?

2) The Power of Predictions

As McTighe and Wills explained, being able to see and to predict patterns (seeing how the experience fits together and matches previous experience) is a motivator. Making predictions and waiting to see the results of those predictions sustains interest (dopamine is release when the prediction proves true). The brain "needs to know" if the prediction was correct.

Buying into a goal and seeing patterns are big connects to UbD -- the student learns what the big picture is and how they fit into it. As neural networks are built on patterns, patterning works at a brain level, too.

These ideas finally gave me an answer to something that has been nagging at me for four years now: what about constructivist approaches? My sense has been that while constructivism and Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) work well, the extreme versions do not. What's extreme? Never confirming students' answers.

Case in point. Several years ago, during a research on learning in museums class, we had a presentation by a museum educator who had been trained in the extreme version of the constructivist/VTS approach. She presented to us, the adult learners and professional educators, a set of wooden objects that she had used in her research and had included in an exhibit. While we came up with a ga-jillion questions and possible answers, including some excellent connected-knowing responses, we never once learned what these objects actually were.

To this day, I don't know if those things were spindles or not. In fact, I no longer care -- because this information is floating in my mental space somewhere and not connected to the other things I understand about objects and history. Frankly, my annoyance was such that I remember this experience more as a lesson on how NOT to teach. (See? There's that emotion in learning concept again....).

I have heard of similar experiences, most of which were pretty painful for the audience. Never knowing if one's predictions were correct or not caused a lot of agony for some groups of very bright and motivated graduate students in arts education. This has bothered me deeply.

If, as Wills and McTighe argue, the building block of "perseverance and memory" (i.e., learning) is the "instrinsic satisfaction of discovering that a prediction made in an unknown situation" is correct via "feedback that it is so," then somebody needs to provide that feedback. The brain needs to know.

On a practical level, this means that the instructor in the gallery does need to gently guide the conversation to a wrap-up place and provide confirmation of the group's ideas. (NOT force a conclusion, or just tell the visitors the answers right away - but find the pattern and give feedback about the accuracy of the prediction.)

On a broader level, this also means that there is a role for the expert in museums (and elsewhere). Elaine Gurian has asked this question in "Curator: From Soloist to Impresario" (part of Hot Topics, Public Culture, Museums The practical and philosophical implications of curatorial authority in museums are a "hot topic" in the museum field. Given the brain-based UbD approach of McRight and Wills, it looks like museums DO need experts to provide feedback...

...but those experts need to share authority and allow for participation by the audience.

Now, can anyone tell me what those objects were? Can I reexperience them in the video game model? Inquiring minds wanna know!!


For additional resources and the presentation slides, go to Jay McTighe's website's Resources Page.

The Participatory Revolution

Asking Audiences is a great museum audience overview blog.

One entry, from May 30, 2011, seems especially relevant to our discussions on participation in the museums:  The Participatory Revolution is All Around Us.  

It is an overview of a panel made earlier this year at AAM 2011.

The image below, from Peter Linett's presentation (he was the panel chair) which is embedded as a Slideshade on his blog, says it all:


It's saying that while audience authority used to be in the left-hand column, it's now in the right.
The blog entry expands on this theme some more, and makes connections to the activities of the other presenters who, notably, work in science museums.  

Unfortunately, since the Asking Audiences authors move to New Mexico this fall, the blog has basically gone on hiatus.  To see more of the blog, click here.

The ideas, though, remain....

Art Giving is Up, but....

Yesterday (October 23, 2011) on NPR's Weekend Edition - Sunday reporter Joel Rose examined the recent upward trend of arts giving: it's improved -- in fact, giving has increased by over 5% in the past twelve months.

This is significant news.

First, it indicates that the economy is improving. (It could also indicate that there is a shift toward community values in still-difficult times, but perhaps that is too utopian of me.)

Second, it provides hope for the future of cultural institutions. (A Boston Globe article last month noted that job growth in the museum and culture sector was negative, so greater giving would surely help.)

But...

Giving is up for established, older-audience, white-majority, well-endowed institutions.

The small, the scrappy, and the local are still struggling.

Rose's example compares the Metropolitan Opera with Arts Engine. Which one have you heard of?

The data comes from a study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy entitled Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy

The concept of participatory philanthropy may be vital to the success of "the other guys" of the museum world....

Participatory Philanthropy!

Tuesday, October 18, 2011, WBUR radio hosted a story by Andrea Shea "Harvest Parties Celebrate Bumper Crop Of Locally-Made Art."

It is the story of how the Cambridge Center for Adult Education (CCAE) is creating Community Supported Art.

Yup, you read that right: it's a CSA for art.

Artist Grace Durnford, left, and Susan Hartnett, creator of the CSArt program (Andrea Shea/WBUR) from WBUR Radio;  View their slideshow

What a fabulous concept! This completely fits with readings and discussions we've been having in museum management, especially our class earlier this week (October 17) about financing.

The CCAE CSArt program has 50 members chip a $300 share for three boxes of three pieces each, distributed one each at a series of "harvest parties."

The nine artists in the program each receive $1500. In return they produce 50 works each (whew!). Program director Susan Hartnett calls this “seed capital,” according to Shea's reporting.

Artist Grace Durnford describes this process of exchange “monetizing" her pieces. That's a strange term to use, but one familiar to any Blogger.... and it, and the “seed capital” comment, raise the issue of how we fund art and the museums which host art and other forms of material culture.

Income, as learned in class, can come from several potential streams: earned, investment income, raised, and public/government sources. Earned is gate fees and other revenue-generating sources -- anything the institution can sell, including goodwill.  For museums and private schools this often includes facility rental, too.   Investment income only comes if one has an endowment or excess capital this is invested. Government/public sources as our professor Laura Roberts explained includes tax credits from charitable donations. [Yes, tax policy is an instrument of social will and deductions can generate social goods. Think on that...!] This leaves raised income, which is usually the province of the Development Office.

While larger, established, more traditional museums have Development Offices, however, artists and smaller museums do not. And, smaller and newer museums need to look to ways to add to their income stream, especially if they are trying to build the capital they need to actually form an endowment.

Enter "venture philanthropy."   It's the practice of using venture capital techniques in a philanthropic context, usually on a smaller and more energetic scale.  We're seen this practice work in schools with DonorsChoose.org. We've seen it in international development with micro-lending ventures, such as Kiva and the Heifer Project. This week we were introduced to micro-philanthropy that harnesses the power of the group to produce venture philanthropy through an interview with Liza Roberts, head of Wake County Women’s Giving Network (NC). This group gives to women and children-supporting non-profits in their area by pooling their member resources. The cost? $1200 per member a year, with a five-year commitment. Only $100 of that $1200 goes to overhead -- an enviable stat in the world of non-profit finance! This coming month they'll announce grants totalling $140,000 to five organizations. Not bad for a group started by some women who were tired of the philanthropic rubber chicken circuit and wanted to see more bang for their buck! 

In addition to getting a "giving circle" grant, other forms of "crowd-sourced" revenue for museums seem possible to me. The CCAE CSArt program is one possibility for a museum as well. It could blur the line between commercial art and the museum as a broker, however, if major donor's galleries or artists or artists whom they hold in their private collections are used. See the AAMD Guidelines for some provoking questions that lead me to this. BUT what if a Children's Museum used art from children's classes as a fundraiser in this way? It could generate not only revenue, but greater buy-in for the kids, their parents, and the shareholder. The shareholder even could be someone other than the kid's grandparents.

Appealing to the smaller investor and using the power of the group for good makes a lot of sense. If 80% of the philanthropy in the U.S. is from individuals, as Prof. Roberts says, then appealing to individuals makes sense.   If worries about the undue influence of a few donors is a concern -- say, someone in that 1% of the U.S. population who consolidating income -- why not invite more people to the group? Furthermore, at least one psychological study has shown that the group as whole can make better decisions than the individual. (Unless, perhaps, they're already very rich and their social conditioning and their "groupthink" has pre-determined their choices.) So, finding ways to involve a greater number of people in the funding of museums makes sense.

Ultimately, I would call this approach Participatory Philanthropy. It's clearly based on Nina Simon's thinking.  Her October 12, 2011 blog entry "Equity in Arts Funding", in fact, is especially relevant here.  But let's extend the participation to funding sources.   The idea that more people could become participants in museums, and that their participation could generate funding to support their museum, is the point here.

I doubt we'll get away from the "Big Ask" completely but adding more "Group Supported Art" (and Artefacts) sounds like a good idea!


For more information on the Cambridge Center for Adult Education CSArt program, click here.

Fiscally-Responsible Museum Branding; or, Do They Have a T-Shirt for That? ;)

Last week in museum management class we were discussing Fiscal Responsibility. In many ways, it was about how to keep the integrity of the organization intact. In other words, what could harm the brand and some thoughts about what to do to keep brand identity strong and therefore consumer loyalty.

This might sound strange in relation to a museum, but really, if we’re talking about a non-profit that needs to focus its mission to deliver (educational) services, create a clientele, be participatory, and continue to exist, isn’t that about brand management?

Business strategies are not a bad thing. Business theory applied to non-profits, however, has things work a little differently. See an excellent article on working for a non-profit in MORE magazine, August, 2011, for explanations made by former heads of for-profit divisions who now work for non-profits: life is different.

As we wrangled with the question of business-museum relationships during class – for example, having a Louis Vuitton shop (profits going to LV) inside a special exhibit – my inner voice kept asking two questions:

1) Aren’t museums businesses (albeit non-profits)?

2) Are the issues of “curatorial independence” fitting to this time and place?

Question #1 has a simple answer I think: yes.

Question #2 led me down some interesting by-ways:

To Wit: How is that museum’s today are so separate from the collectors, the artists, and the visitors?

Historically, museum collections were the products of one person’s passion.

The collection itself was the personal property of that person. The acquisition of these objects were commodity transactions in and of themselves. The museum itself would have been established by that collector and their personal likes and dislikes dictate exhibition. The Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, MA is one such example. The Frick in NYC is another. The genesis of many larger collections is the aggregation of such personal acquisitiveness, no?


Also, those who are insisting on museum exhibitions conforming to a certain standard seem to have two things in mind:

One, museums are supposed to be dusty and non-interactive.

Two, that museums as non-profits created to serve the educational interests of the public have a duty to the greater good, and “shameless commerce” is not part of that duty. In this view, museums are a public good. Yet, unlike true economic public goods, museums are run by private boards, not the public government.

So, really, are capitalist transactions out of place?

Frankly, we have commoditized a large number of public goods.

Education is one – schools are run on grants in order to overcome the budgetary shortfalls and private business have influence, from signs on football stadium fences to commercial ads in homeroom broadcasts. The Post Office is another – it is supposed to a be self-supporting business these days; hence the sales of "related products."


Given this line of thinking, why should any art go into a museum?

Why not just have gallery shows or personal collection viewings?

Or why not expose “curatorial control” as the rule by a few elite?

Or promote a shop inside the exhibit as an example of a participatory event?

hmmm….

Ultimately, I guess, it’s a question of maintaining institutional trust and educational purpose.

To do that, fitting the activities and associations of the museum to its mission and purpose, with an eye to that economic intangible of goodwill is important.

So, probably, shameless commerce is a no. But the lessons of Exit Through the Gift Shop still have me wondering… Should we be entering through the gift shop?

Music affects the brain

Do you have a soundtrack for your life?

If so, you're not alone.

May athletes use am iPod as part of their warm-up routine, for example.

But did you know that there's brain-based research showing how different soundtracks can affect your brain's function?

Dr. Galina Mindlin, assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, can show you how.

As reported in the Boston Globe online on September 28, 2011, Mindlin, who also runs the Brain Music Therapy Center, has shown the influence of music on the brain. The beats per minute have a definite effect. The association of memories and emotion with certain songs also have an impact. The actual impact varies with the individual, however.

While "Baby Mozart" music is not going to shape an infant into a genius, studying to Mozart can increase calm and focus.

The article gives suggestions for beats per minute for certain types of situational goals.

One question: is music's impact on the brain or the heart...?

Museums as Learning Organizations, or, why intent and its consistent application is important....

Earlier this week I heard a presentation by two General Managers of the Guest Experience at the Conner Prairie Interactive History Park: Aili McGill and John Elder.

Their comments were enlightening as was the class audience discussion afterward.

If museums are primarily educational in mission, then they should be learning institutions.

Learning institution is a term of Peter Senge and his followers. Senge is the top management guru of the 1990s and 2000s. His goal was to create an entire learning organization, from top to bottom. His book The Fifth Discipline is the cornerstone for organizational learning theory.

Senge’s ideas are picked up in Randi Korn's article about holistic organizations and intentionality. Her argument boils down to a simple precept: the entire museum, with all staff, needs to be focused on its mission, and purposefully make all actions directed to achieving that goal. In other words, the organization needs to live its intent.

This is hard to do. I am the veteran of several educational organizations' transition years and know well what designing the mission (via strategic planning) and living the mission can feel like. It doesn’t go smoothly and it doesn’t always go well. It's "living in interesting times" -- !

Enter Conner Prairie. As consultant and educator Laura Roberts argues, it is “the best example of intentionality” she can find. Certainly, the way in which this museum has clarified its mission and crafted its programs and staff experience to fit the intent of the museum. Conner Prairie presents how this did this on their website and through their DVD.

Several things that John and Aili mentioned resonated with the idea that museums as educational institutions and with the concept of holistic intentionality.

One, the institution as a whole really looked at mission and program and made sure that the entire institution was on target.

Two, the strategic planners involved everyone in the process of planning and made sure that those who were affected had input. The suggestions for how the program would work were made by those who saw who it worked or did not. Doing this was crucial because these are the people who actually know what’s going on and therefore have the data that is needed for planning. Also, it is necessary for buy in and implementation of program. Too often strategic planning it top down. In a school it would be top level management sequestered in a conference room for several days. Certainly the food service staff and security would not be involved. Yet who is the front line when something breaks? The "line staff" of security, food service, interpreters, etc.... Thus holistic intentionality.

Three, they crafted their approach to allow for downtime for the “guests” (visitors). They did this to enhance visitor learning. Allowing the learners enough time to process what they've learned so they remember it is called consolidation time. It is basic brain-based educational theory. It works.

By switching their approach from filing visitor vessels to interacting with guests, Conner Prairie staff began to educate.

Four, they shifted evaluation. This got them the greatest impact. Their evaluation shifted so that the rubrics looked for what was desired as results. This means that the person or product being assessed knows how to craft their performance to reach the goals. In education this is called “backward design” or understanding by design (UbD). It is essential to the curriculum planning process. Look at the work of Heidi Hayes Jacobs and Grant Wiggins for more on this.

As I listened to the questions and comments after the presentation, however, two areas of audience concern riled me.

1) A few people thought that the switch from content to process was ghastly.
I couldn’t disagree more. If learning involves the long-term retention of information and the knowledge how to use it, then a focus on process and building cognitive connections is much more important than trying to cram facts into someone else.

This position of building interconnections is the core of constructivism.

It’s also brain-based learning theory.

It’s also effective social psychology.

It’s also Web 2.0 social networking, and hence participatory museum fundamentals.

Ken Bain in What the Best College Teachers Do has demonstrated that the question of what people think about who can learn dictates their the purpose of education, their educational approach, and their results. To wit: if someone thinks that the ability to learn is static – that one is born with the ability to learn and cannot change – then their students won’t learn.

If you think people can’t change, then why the hell are you in teaching?

And, if a museum is about learning, then why would anyone involved in it belief that learning is fixed, that is a quantity, that it is an object, that it is one-way communication about facts?

So, the holistic organization is about learning and interaction.

The struggle reminds me of the controversy of VTS.

Shari Tishman, whom I adore, presents a good response in her argument that museums are for learning; see her essay here.

2) Why involve the whole organization in decision-making? The little people don't have much to add. (Ouch! is my response.)

Besides populist politics and good manners, it is good learning theory to involve everyone. (You know, Vygotskyan and Dewey-esque social learning; that sort of thing...) It’s also politic and effective.

Granted, not everyone will want to be involved, or agree with the new stragetic direction of the institution. Regrettably, there will be turnover. This is the sad experience. And it hurts if it’s you. But if the mission and intent is crafted by the whole organization with input and purpose, then those who participate can see if they want to buy in. Those who are new hires will fit themselves to the intent.

When we all know what that organization is all about, then that museum or school will have a clear mission that all members can fulfill with intent. I can still quote the mission statement from one of my previous schools, as can the alumnae. Mission gives us purpose and everyone in the organization needs to live that purpose in order to be effective. So, this is a "participatory museum" and a "learning organization" and a "holistic institution."

So, museums are learning organizations AND they need to know learning theory.

As you can tell by my references to educational theory above, I think there is more to be done in this area of connecting museum management to classroom managers.

Conner Prairie actually did that.

Cool.

Museums are like Independent Schools....

The past two week in the museum administration class I'm taking we've been reading about the museum's relationship to the audience -- the museum as an authority but also as accountable to the audience.

Part of the accountability is engaging the audience. Another part is being a trustworthy source. Another part is serving the mission. Another is meeting the needs/expectations of other stakeholders, such as the board or the auditor or the powers that enforce the non-profit laws....

While Nina Simon pushes us to think about revisioning the museum audience as participatory, and while Simon and other people (Grove, Robin Cembalest, Jim Richardson, Daniel Spock, Anderson, and Carol Scott (and Carol Scott) just to name a few), "reshape" thinking about museums as places of shared authority, I found myself thinking the same thing, over and over again:

Running a museum is like running an independent school.

Why do I say this?

Here is a list of "Why a Museum is like an Independent School":

1) Both are non-profit institutions.

2) Both are mission-driven.

3) Both are responsible to multiple stakeholders.

4) Both, in their essence, are learning institutions.

5) Both have retention as a major concern along with the "yield rate" (memberships from admissions for museums and returning students from admits for schools) but neither has all of their program primarily funded by "receipts" (gate receipts/admissions for museums, tuition for schools).

6) As a consequence, both are actively involved in courting additional sources of funding

7) This means that both institutions need
a) additional "profit centers"
(like a summer school or a golf course for a school, and a cafe or a gift shop for a museum)
b) a talented and active development office
c) a head who knows how to
-- schmooze and smile
-- read a balance sheet, an income statement, and other financials
-- hire talented others who can raise money and delegate to them
d) a SWOT analysis performed on a regular basis
e) a "theory of change"
f) an understanding of "backwards planning" on an institutional level
g) an ability to "curriculum plan" (a la Heidi Hayes Jacobs) on an institutional level -- perhaps also known as the "logic model"
h) an ability to develop and use "metrics"
i) an understanding of the "implicit messages" or "hidden curriculum" that the institution sends
(like, the education department with a tiny budget and housed in the museum's basement or toilet door signs that read "Men" and "Ladies" in an all-girl school)
j) the ability to sector the potential markets and constituencies


8) BUT, in both cases, the institutional head needs to be someone who understands the institution and its people (i.e., cannot be just a "numbers-cruncher") because

9) Both museums and schools are creative fields, with their own complex institutional cultures which shapes the people and the perceptions, within and without, of how these institutions work. The CULTURE and the PEOPLE are ignored at the leader's and the institution's peril.

Because creative people are not driven by the same priorities as and do not have their thinking shaped in the same ways as business people/mba's, which is why the creative folk went into the non-profit sector in the first place! The monetary incentive while important is not the primary inducement for a teacher or a docent.

10) Both would benefit from an infusion of Web 2.0 technologies and techniques...

11) But both, as mission-driven institutions with their own histories and with budget limitations, are hard-pressed to implement said technologies but need to do so as a tool to realize the mission goals.

12) Both benefit from a CONSTRUCTIVIST approach to their programmatic design.

13a) Programs that are more like "play" or "leisure" are better received.

13b) The audience of each comprises more than just children.

14) They are products of their community.

15) Both are accountable to their public, yet the audience/student population changes with each generation...

16) And therefore, at the end of the day, both are participatory institutions, because without the people whom the institution and its mission is supposed to serve, there would be no institution. Ergo, both museums and independent schools are service organizations, who must SHARE authority because they are accountable to audiences, whom they must entice to return, with the prospect of a value-added experience.

Running a museum is like running an independent school.

This thought is actually, strangely, liberating for me.

You see, I'm trained to run an independent school.

But I'd rather run a museum.

The Participatory Museum

Today (Thursday, September 22, 2011) I was lucky enough to get some professional development time to attend a workshop sponsored by Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) and hosted by the Higgins Armory Museum.

It was "Fostering Innovation in an Interactive Museum Culture" led by Nina Simon.

Nina Simon is currently the head of a museum in Santa Cruz and the head of Museum 2.0 blog. She is the author of The Participatory Museum.


Simon, an EE grad of WPI, says she is out to change museums. Chiefly by making them more interactive. How? Three key ways, says Simon, changing museums:
--from a destination to a place of everyday use
--from a trusted source of information to a trusted host of social experiences
--from a place of seeing and exploring to that AND being a making and sharing place.

Simon elaborated with examples of how museums typically are static sources of information that people visit only three times in their lives (studenthood, parenthood, and grandparenthood) -- that they need to go from being purely a content provider to being a platform provider, i.e., being a place where people go to do things with stuff and each other. For example, hosting an evening "stitch and bitch" group in the galleries. These shifts would create the participatory museum.

This makes sense to me as, in high school, I took an afternoon modern dance class in the Addison Gallery. I have deep and significant memories of contemplating the art even while I tried to refine a footwork sequence. There is one abstract, almost Cubist, painting of a daffodil that I still want to re-visit as it symbolizes my junior (upper middle) year.

While creating participation could be through digital means, Simon's focus today was in the museum gallery, working directly with objects.

One of Simon's big points was that participation needs to center around objects. In other words, people need an object to discuss. Simply throwing two strangers together may not work. A mediator (usually an object, but could be another person) is necessary. Anyone who has tried to have a conversation with a teenaged boy understands this -- sitting side by side, working on something (playing a video game, repairing a bike, watching TV) will produce a conversation, while staring at each other over a table with the command to "Talk!" will not.

Social objects have these qualities (but not necessarily all at once):
--often very big
--draws one in with their process of creation
--connects to pop culture
--provocative
--requires some figuring out
--has some motion to it.

How do you know when you've got a "social object"? (Or, what are the 'metrics"?) You'll see the people interacting with it and each other produce the following behaviors (again, but not necessarily all at once):
--talking
--pointing
--taking photos
--'reproducing' (mimicking the object, or building something in its image)
--moving around it or with it
--asking others to join them with the object
--interpreting the object for others.

It occurs to me, that the new Chihuly sculpture -- the Lime Green Icicle Tower-- at the MFA Boston is such an object. It's greenness, size, texture, location, newness and importance as a fundraiser all lead to conversations of people clustered around it, even if the comments vary from "ooh, ahh!" to "wtf?!?".

After talking about examples of participatory experience from a variety of museums across the country, we spent the afternoon "walking the talk" [ha!] by going upstairs into the Higgins Armory galleries to determine what exhibits provoked participation and in what ways could we design participatory exhibits/experiences. They group as a whole had some terrific ideas.

Also, the venue and its stuff was awesome. By the nature of the collection and its appeal, the immersive nature of the building and galleries, plus the work done by the education staff to host a variety of events, the Higgins Armory and the workshop group make participation easy.

And, I'll admit, I'm a sucker for a sharp blade...

Thanks to Simon and the other participants for a thought-provoking day!

See you at Saturday's "Festival of Ale"?

Or, better yet, at Higgins Armory in November after they open their Wii-based interactive exhibit Extreme Sport: Jousting Then and Now?!

Power of Touch

Here's something I found while, of course, researching something else. It's from PBS's Teacher's Domain. The segment is The Power of Touch. Their description blurb is below.

Why is touch so important to our physical and emotional well-being? And what happens when it is withheld? This video segment explores the role of touch in the development of young animals, including humans, and looks at the therapies parents are using to enrich the lives and minds of their infants and toddlers. Footage from NOVA: "Mystery of the Senses: Touch."

Museum Management --AAM Code of Ethics

From time to time I take courses and read articles in museum studies. For the next few months I will be posting reflections on assigned articles. These should prove some useful food for thought.

Aug 29 Readings:

The AAM Code of Ethics for Museums is a brief but seemingly comprehensive document. As I’ve been working with the Code of Ethics for the AAA (anthropology) for years, truly the AAM ethical code seems standard.

What is remarkable to me, then, are some items which seem unusual or contradictory to other experiences I have had.

The Code stresses that museums are “in the tradition of public service,” that they are not for “personal gain” or individual profit. Historically, they protest too much. While currently museums (most of them) are in the public sector of non-profits, they were not always such. Indeed, the origins of museums as private collections, cabinets of curiosities, PT Barnum or profit centers point to a different origin and belie the “tradition.” Some of the most interesting collections are precisely that: privately-bought and owned groupings of stuff that have been subsequently donated to the museum for others to enjoy (for tax write off). Today, the laws and expectations surrounding non-profits are substantial and do aim to have “governance promot[ing] public good rather than individual financial gain.” Yet museums, like all non-profits, have to pay the bills. Wouldn’t it be more important to ask the critical question of non-profit management: what is the percentage of funds going to direct service, not administration? If museums do not have income, they do not exist. And in the current economic climate, government funding and private donations have been dwindling. Money making is very much the goal, as long as its not for a group smaller than the museum is supposed to serve.

The Code also stresses that museums have a mission and “public trust responsibilities.” The emphasis on mission is consistent with modern non-profits. Definition of mission is an essential element. Yet mission provides a loophole that links museums with their historic past.

What is the public for the museum?

The Code document tries to stress that it is the whole public whom museums serve. The governing board of the museum is supposed to ensure that the museum “is responsive to and represents the interests of society.” Who is society? The museum is supposed to “encourage participation of the widest possible audience consistent with its mission and resources.” Here is the kicker. Museums do not serve everybody – not if they are focused in their mission. This is consistent with independent schools, who also are non-profits who target their audiences. While museums, and schools, should broaden their appeal, trying to serve too large a base without the resources or support to do so would only lessen the effectiveness. There is a delicate balance here and it’s a hard balancing act to maintain.

No wonder there was a “very lively and involved discussion” when the question of adopting the Code was called!

The questions of fund-raising and matching mission to audience were very much the issues of the 1980s and today. One of the nice sections of the Code is it’s “afterword.” In it, the list of issues seems the same as today:
“Rapid technological change, new public policies relating to non-profit corporations, a troubled educational system, shifting patterns of private and public wealth and increased financial pressures.” If anything, the challenges are the same but only of greater magnitude!

The issues are ones I’m sure we’ll grapple with while thinking about museums.


Afterword—
There are two parts of the Code that I find quirkily delightful:

One, the initial statement that “Museums make their unique contribution to the public by collecting, preserving, and interpreting the things of the this world.” For the purposes of this blog, grappling with “the things of this world” is very much the mission!

Two, some historical food for thought: The 1925 AAM original code of ethics argued that the value of museums was “in direct proportion to the service they render the emotional and intellectual life of the people.” Today we seem to focus on the intellectual life and not the emotional…? The focus in cognitive science research is now on the impact of the emotional, and this is a topic that is being reclaimed in education as well. Given that this weekend is the anniversary of 9/11, the memorials and exhibits in commemoration presented also tap into the emotional. In many ways, these seem to be atypical of museum exhibitions and goals. Is there a dichotomy here?

Ethics as Embodied

Every Sunday the Boston Globe has a column in the "Ideas" section that's pretty useful:  "Uncommon Knowledge" by Kevin Lewis.  This section has paragraph blurbs about the key ideas from recent research.

On Sunday, July 31, 2011, "Uncommon Knowledge" had an entry titled "For an ethical decision, don't think." (It's the third paragraph down.) It's about a study that tested what happened when people thought about the right thing to do, or just acted on their feelings. Turns out people do right more often then they don't think about it!

In other words, as study author Chen-Bo Zhong states in his abstract: Recent developments in moral psychology, however, suggest that moral functions involved in ethical decision making are metaphorical and embodied. The research presented here suggests that deliberative decision making may actually increase unethical behaviors and reduce altruistic motives when it overshadows implicit, intuitive influences on moral judgments and decisions.

So, DO what FEELS right -- you've got the gut sense to know better!


Original study by Chen-Bo Zhong: The Ethical Dangers of Deliberative Decision Making in Administrative Science Quarterly (March 2011).

Prep School Education Means Never Having to Feel Uneasy

Every so often I try to deconstruct my own education by reading the newest examination of the prep school experience.

The latest entry into this category is Shamus Rahman Khan's Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School (2001).

Khan is a Paulie, a former instructor, and now a sociologist. He's got some interesting insights here, although he occasionally muses too much, too academically.

What struck me was his observation that preppies learn to be physically at home in their surroundings, and carry this trait with them to all settings. Khan calls this state of being ease. He says that being at ease in all situations is one of the key benefits of this elite education. (Others are "supreme indifference" to amazing experiences and benefits as well as a talent for producing academic glibness without actually doing academic work....)

Khan discusses "ease" and "embodiment" at some length throughout the book. (Khan cites the work of Pierre Bourdieu as source of the embodiment concept, p. 196.) Here's the passage:

Embodiment is a fancy word for a simple idea: we carry our experiences with us. Our time in the world becomes imprinted on our bodies themselves . Time in elite space matters, and by definition elite spaces are ones that are exclusive. The importance to embodiment is that once social experiences become embodied, they begin to seem natural. It's just how your [sic] carry yourself. We all have to act in some way; your embodiment is yours. The particular form of embodiment of the new elite is ease. This ease is enormously wide-ranging. As they have integrated those who have been excluded, the elite have adapted many of the cultural markers they previously shunned. And so the new elite are at ease in a wide range of areas (pp 196-197).

Khan goes on to say "embodied ease is a physical manifestation" of "openness", that is elite's ability to play anywhere with anyone and blame others for not being able to do so (p. 197). He uses these concepts to deconstruct the current version of how preps are still elite and more hierarchical and exclusive, even while admitting a greater variety of people from a variety of background than ever before. Of course, as Khan explains, the main people who benefit from the experience are white males of the socioeconomic elite, because they are the ones for whom the experience has been shaped. The other kids find the societal gateway (drug) of prep school to be much more uneasy. And the gap between those can have these experiences and those who cannot afford them is growing.

How Khan explains embodiment is to the point. His equation of ease, embodiment, and privilege is powerful. His observations confirm many of my own experiences (as student and as teacher) in private schools. Not all. But how a student reassures a teacher that they belong in particular classroom can be how the kid inhabits that space.

Khan's thinking also connects to museum studies about school visitors and visitor experiences -- those who feel most comfortable in most museums are the people who grew up going to museums.... Hmmm, who would that be?

So, in this week as many of us go back to school, let us ask: For what purpose, and in what ways, are we shaping our students' environments? In what settings will they feel at ease? Where do you feel comfortable?

Me, I'm back to walking through halls with hundreds of teenagers flowing through them and feeling like it's normal...sorta.

Is returning to the sensory "short-circuiting evolution"?

In an op-ed piece for the NY Times on August 8, 2011, Diane Ackerman reports on a recently reported study in the Journal of Consumer Relations by Dan King and Chris Janiszewski called "Affect-Gating," which will appear in the Journal of Consumer Research in December, 2011.

A JSTOR press release summarizes their findings: "Animal instincts: Why do unhappy consumers prefer tactile sensations?"
(link to press release published online June 7, 2011 here)
[Note -- the article has yet to appear]

Apparently, when we feel bad, we want the comforts of touch and looking around at the wide, wide, scary world has less appeal.

Well, no duh.

Not only does most personal experience confirm this, but a combination of cognitive research about emotion and behavior and standard psychological studies do too. (Antonio D'Amasio and Harry Harlow's baby monkeys may come to mind here.) The study authors link primed visual sensory systems with emotional confidence and tactile priming with negative emotive states.

In other words, "I'm writing a paper and I want my binkie!" (Seriously, this blog was typed while a paper was due... at least the sensation of typing was soothing...)

But, of course, modern marketing, along with behavioral economics, has taken using the results of such research in a new direction.

Thus King and Janiszewski correlate their mammalian research to consumer behavior -- a product's sensory attributes need to feel just right to the buyer, and that depends on how the shopper feels.

(Ok, how do they know how Consumer Goldilocks is feeling when she's shopping? What if her shoes are pinching? How would the store try to control for emotional state? What about other cultures, when gaze is conditioned differently? Just wondering...)

As Ackerman explains, making comfort foods and other consumer materials just right is terribly important in order to increase sales.

This also makes sense.

Ackerman's connection to evolution and how humans override it, however, isn't terribly well-made. If she's trying to score a point in the ongoing nature vs. nuture debate, or the mind-body controversy, or the intellectual vs. capitalist games, it went past me. She seems to be saying that we are at the mercy of our bodies, emotionally and physically. Hmmm.

Well, this may explain why I -- and other academics -- want to eat nonstop when writing research papers...

Potato chip anyone?


Originating article:
Evolution’s Gold Standard
By DIANE ACKERMAN
Published: August 8, 2011
"Why we humans seem to want for little but are craving nonstop."

Bodily Memory with FOOD

Last Monday (August 8, 2011), two stories from two sources converged. The topic? How food can shape the offspring. Or, the power of bodily memory...?

First, NPR reported on how the flavors a mother eats while pregnant can influence the child's reactions to foods later in life.
Baby's Palate And Food Memories Shaped Before Birth
by Gretchen Cuda-Kroen.

While not fool-proof, greater exposure in utero can increase acceptance of a greater variety of foods while growing up. The story reports some other interesting findings.

Then CBS's the Early Show had a segment by Marysol Castro about Marje Vongerichten's examination of her adopted past called "The Kimchi Chronicles." The point for us here is Vongerichten's account of having a 'flood of memories' return to her once she ate the food that her biological mother had cooked for her. Below is the video of the interview:





The website for "The Kimchi Chronicles" click here.

Two stories on the same day about the how food can shape someone converge.

So, yes, in a way, we are what we eat... and the body has memory...

No wonder I can crave grits, huh?

Museum Boxes -- This is SO cool!

One of the benefits of working with teachers is that I get to learn, too.

Most recently, I learned about an interactive website called Museum Boxes.

This virtual box is basically a portable cabinet of curiosities which allows the creator to display representations of key objects and ideas. It is based on an actual portable box of representative items which an abolitionist speaker used in the course of his lecture tour.

Inside the box are "drawers" into which one can play virtual "cubes" which have sides on which these representations may be places. These representations could be images, video, weblinks, Word documents, or other items that are digitally attachable. The six sides of the cubes will be displayed as the visitor clicks on them. It is possible to have up to three layers of cubes in the box.

The display of the cubes is somewhat kinetic. It doesn't replace actually turning over the cube while gazing in wonder, but it's a start.

The box, like most museum exhibits, seems to be more focused on maker-centered display rather than visitor use, however.

It would be great if the cubes could be rearranged by the user/viewer into an order that makes sense to them. This would be a way to have the cubes be building blocks of an argument/synthesize of the information presented on the cubes. This also raises the question of whether multiple sides of a cube should be duplicated or if each cube should be assigned a major concept so that the user would have to make a forced choice when arranging the cubes for herself.

When I taught United States History I did something similar to the Museum Boxes but with brown paper bags and note cards. Students had to select cards, put them into the bags (grouping), and then take out the cards to synthesize further when writing an essay. They liked the process of physically sorting, and there was audience participation. For another activity, I used a brown paper bag into which I have placed representative items, had students withdraw the items, and puzzle over the significance of each and connection between all.

Museum Boxes is intriguing in that is digital -- this makes for new and additional media possibilities, and for portability. I wish it had more kinesethetic functionality, but it's a great start!

Antiques ARE Material Culture, Too!

Imagine my surprise...

I'm looking up the citation for Igor Kopytoff's germinal article on object biographies, and this pops up:

Antiques Roadshow --!

Apparently, someone at PBS, bless 'em, decided to provide a teacher's guide to material culture as well as a definition of material culture.

The Teacher's Guide has a block quote from Kopytoff, expressing the essence of Kopytoff.

My experience with Kopytoff comes from a 2008 course on Museum Anthropology I took with fabulous, fabulous anthropologist and human being David Odo. The concept of "object biography" -- telling the life story of the object in all its relationships -- was the cornerstone of our research work in that course.

In the past, when I taught anthropology to high schoolers [yep, you read that right -- one of the few in the country doing that and lovin' every minute of it], we watched "The Gods Must Be Crazy." In many ways with that film, we did a post-modern deconstruction of the messages implied in that film and then proceeded to learn about much-improved methods of portraying peoples and cultures.... but if one thinks about the thinks about the life of the Coke bottle, then one has got the essence of Kopytoff's object biography.

But I hadn't read of or heard of Kopytoff at that point (c. 1989-2000).

To think, all I would have had to do was go to Antiques Roadshow.... oh, wait, websites with teachers guides were rare then, too.

Anyway, awesome useful theory crops up in all sorts of places!



Here's the full cite:
Igor Kopytoff, “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process” in Arjun Appadurai, ed., The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1986, 64-91.

Internet Changing Memory?

In an article posted yesterday (July 15, 2011) in Boston.com, the Boston Globe's Internet newspaper, reports from the recent issue of Science that the Internet is changing how people think and remember.

The headline says it all: "Memory slips caught in the Net: Web changing how people recall facts, study says." The author is Carolyn Y. Johnson.

To quote from one of the scientists interviewed for the Boston.com piece:
“Our memories are changing,’’ said Daniel Wegner, a psychology professor at Harvard and the senior author of the study. “So we remember fewer facts and we remember more sources, which website you saw it on or whose e-mail to look in to find that. . . . It’s like having information at our fingertips makes us always go to our fingertips.’’

Well, the fingertips do have grey matter!

Ok, obvious puns about kinesthetic memory aside, the articles does make the point that people are using Internet searches a lot and that this experience is shaping 1) how they look for information and 2) how they store (or forget) information. It seems that people remember the information that is either unusual or is not "stored" somewhere on the computer. Also, they remember how they looked for and found this information.

Frankly, this isn't surprising. Studies have shown that people "off-load cognition" into objects as a way to decrease short-term memory load and as a way to improve memory. If the stone you picked up on the beach on vacation is a memory-marker, you don't have to think about your vacation all the time.... but each time you pick up that stone you probably will access those memories.

Also, given the way that neural networks are constructed, the more we perform an action, the more connections and speed that action will have in the neural network. Given the number of times in a day most of us perform Internet searches, it is no surprise to me that we don't remember what we've searched for and found especially after we've "bookmarked" that item, but we do recall the steps that got us to this information.

Just last weekend, I did the same thing in Reno, Nevada when I took a girlfriend to the bakery I had been to the day before: I drove, got lost, and corrected in exactly the same way as before -- only the second time I laughed at myself the entire time!
(By the way, it was Josef's Bakery and Cafe -- excellent breakfast.)

The other charming thing about the Sparrow, Liu and Wegner study is that it provides hope for our interaction with the Internet and learning.... having a memory aid is no bad thing. One of their points, however, is that while information may be saved to "the Cloud" and its social network, important information may need to be personally retained.

Like all tools, the use is what's important!

Study: Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips
Betsy Sparrow, Jenny Liu, Daniel M. Wegner,
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1207745,
Published Online 14 July 2011,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/07/13/science.1207745

The Strange Fate of Objects

Welcome back!

So, to inaugurate a new year of blogging (hint: my birthday and the "return of the light" always seems like a fresh start and a new year), this blog will resume with its posts on objects, learning with and about objects, the strange interactions of cognition (and the brain) with objects and movement, and how to incorporate material culture and kinesthetic learning into classrooms and museums...

What better way to do this than with an icon of pop culture??

To wit: Jackie Kennedy's dress from Dallas.

In a recent (January 28, 2011) Yahoo News, "Jackie Kennedy artifacts missing from JFK inauguration anniversary exhibit" Brett Michael Dykes reports on the archival fate of Jackie's pink suit and accessories from the November 22, 1963 Dallas motorcade....

Spoiler alert!

...NARA has it.

NARA is the National Archives and Records Administration. They're better known for archiving paper documents (actual, representational, or digital). But they have the complete outfit (minus the pillbox hat) in deep storage until 2103.

The outfit itself is an iconic object. Unlike many objects its specific history and significance are well-known. The path of its arrival is a mystery -- like many objects. Its storage and care are phenomenal -- unlike many objects.

But the outfit is incomplete -- like many objects: the pillbox hat is missing.

Like many things about Jackie O. -- and about working with objects -- there is some mystery remaining....