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.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
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?!
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?!
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
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."
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."
Saturday, September 10, 2011
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?
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?
Monday, September 5, 2011
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)