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?