About this weblog

I have a passion for (non formal) education, philosophy of education, for museums and libraries. With this blog I intent to explore these passions on an operational, strategic and rather more reflective level. Hoping that it will inspire enthusiasts and professionals everywhere to contribute, share their thoughts, projects and ideas. One word of warning: if you come to this blog looking for definite answers you’re in the wrong place. This blog is my instrument to develop en formulate questions and to search for new directions of thought. Maybe occasionally I’ll find and answer, but don’t bet on it!

Science and technology education: avoiding or using dilemmas?

In the Netherlands science & technology education (STE, but that is already “old”, I still use it because it makes matters very clear) is a priority on many agendas: from government to ngo’s, universities and new institutions especially founded (and funded) for this goal. The idea behind the myriad of programmes and initiatives is to give children and youngsters a perspective on the feasibility of and education in science and technology.

Of course, this has been the goal of science centers around the world for many years now. Actually, it could maybe said that this is their very reason of being. In my work for science centers we increasingly discuss ethical issues with regard to STE. What do I mean by this?

Many science centers have quite a strict policy on whom they cooperate with and whom they don’t. Some projects even have black lists: in the context of the FIRST LEGO League (r) (Stichting Techniekpromotie is the Benelux coordinator) for example the organizers world wide get a so called black list of companies that they cannot approach for sponsoring. For example the army is excluded. But it’s not only within the framework of this competition that this is ‘banned’. Most science center I know in The Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and elsewhere in Europe have quite strict ideas on what they wish to show of the world of science and technology and what they wish to avoid.

I have my questions with regard to this strategy. Firstly, how fair is this choice vis a vis the children science centers wish to inspire? Don’t we owe it to our visitors to show the good, the bad and the ugly? All of it is part of science and technology. Secondly, on a more philosophical level: the notion behind this choice seems to be that science and technology are intrinsically neutral and that with this tool one can either do good or bad. This denies much of the philosophical tradition of science and technology in which there is long standing attention for the social construction of science and technology. In short this holds that science and technology are socially constructed and as such are definitely not neutral in themselves. Bruno Latour is a well known propoent of this theory, and in The Netherlands Wiebe Bijker at my alma mater Maastricht University. Thirdly, this pre-selection by science centers and others involved with STE prevents from what I see as being core to the field as well: the confrontation with dilemma’s. What are the dilemma’s scientists are confronted with? And how do you systematically reflect on those as a person and a professional involved in science and/or technology? How do you choose knowing that every choice you make vis a vis the dilemma effectively involves loss? Fourthly there is of course the slippery slope argument: where do we draw the line? Boeing makes passenger planes….but is a serious manufacturer for the army as well. Perhaps the most simple example to make this point clear, which I often use, is the hammer and the screwdriver. They are used to manufacture many things we consider good: shelves for books, cupboards, pans to cook food in, you name it. But these same hammer and screw driver are essential instruments to manufacture weapons. To put the argument in overdrive: no war without hammer and screw driver!

What I wonder: would it not make better educators, better institutions and in the end better professionals if in stead of taking away these dilemma’s in our education we confront the children with these dilemma’s and assist in their systematic, personal reflection on these dilemma’s? Rather than avoiding them altogether? I would say so. And I do see many practical possibilities to incorporate this in the education activities. What are your thoughts?

Cultural entrepreneurship, market research, museums and libraries

For the past few years together with a colleague I‘ve been involved in market research for a few museums. Last Friday I attended a workshop at the annual museum conference and I heard that quite a few museums are rather unfamiliar with market research. Or rather: some do some research, others don’t, and others are getting acquainted with it. And quite a few seem to wrestle with the question how to get people/groups in the ir picture that do not visit their museum. This morning we held a presentation on market research for a group of librarians involved with bringing a library IT product, it concerns public libraries to the market. For both museums and public libraries the what, and how of market research and especially WHY they should engage in this activity seems unexpectedly hard to explain. As with the museums Friday the libraries this morning wrestled with the question how to get target groups in focus that are not in the least bit interested in them. The binding question between museums and the public libraries thus being: how do we engage in a good, meaningful conversation about the needs, wants, feelings etc. of people whom we are not in touch with to explore where we can meet?

Museums, libraries, market research….. an until recently uncommon equation. With the call from government and the general public for more accountability over tax money spent and for increasing amounts of self generated income in public libraries and museums market research becomes a necessity I feel, a practicality that fits in the wider framework of the call and need for cultural entrepreneurship. Or rather, let’s call that: entrepreneurship for public libraries and museums. Because cultural entrepreneurship seems a container term already, covering anything from artists going commercial to companies doing something cultural.

What fascinates me is that there seems to be little or nearly no attention for the practical side of this entrepreneurship for museums and public libraries. I can find – and have done so! – rather generic training modules for entrepreneurship in libraries and museums, but I do not feel that these modules meet specific needs nor do I believe that this pars pro toto approach befits the needs of the sector. I strongly beli eve that a very individual approach is needed, as per organisation so many different people, skills, talents, ambitions etc. are involved. For example, some public librarians I met and assisted in developing their skills are excellent salesmen and –women. Others are happier structuring the back office. So different people, different approaches, and different tasks. But entrepreneurships is not only about skills. It’s also about processes within the libraries and museums. I feel that one cannot develop entrepreneurship without addressing those issues as well. All the more surprising that there seems to be so very little attention for this practical side of entrepreneurship, for the fears, joys, transformations, surprises and what have you that people encounter when taking the first steps on this rocky path. I think that especially this attention is so much needed to marry museums, libraries and entrepreneurship. Because I am passionate about it and based on my current experiences and practice I am convinced that it can be done, that there are ways. Practical skills can be awakened, shaped and taught and there genuinly are (many) professionals in the museums and library sector who (potentially, in the Platonic way) have what it takes. And moreover: I strongly feel that museums and libraries should profit from these professionals to make themselves and their products more visible. Any experiences out there with hands on cultural entrepreneurship in various countries? I would be delighted to hear and if anyone is interested I would be happy to explain how we organised several trajectories.

Charter for Compassion

As the saying goes: "What is a consultant without a model?" I would like to expand that saying with "and without empathy?" What can you actually achieve in any organisation, project, or more broadly speaking, in any interhuman contact without empathy? One look into most practices (including my own!, into the newspapers and probably also to yourself, makes it obvious that this seamingly easy and rethoric question is in pointed fact terribly hard. 

The Charter for Compassion, an initiative created by Karen Armstrong, re-establishes the Golden Rule which requires that we use empathy - moral imagination - to put oursevels in others' shoes. We should act toward them as we would want them to act toward us. We should refuse, under any circumstance, to carry out actions which would cause them harm.

I feel this is a great initiative, that I wholeheartedly support. As I see it, we live in a time where the world is increasingly connected by all sorts of transportation and communication tools. But somehow our newly found connectivity is not back upped by this Golden Rule. Rather it seems the opposite: the more possibilities we have to look across the borders of our own lives, both geographically and spiritually, the harder we seem to find it to put empathy into practice. 

Having worked extensively in intercultural projects both on a European and international level, I have become more and more convinced of the need for empathy, the power of empathy but also the difficulties of consciously putting empathy into practice in sometimes even the most trivial of situations. Where there is probably also the most need for it. I hope that this Charter will serve at least as a permanent reminder for myself of the importance and as an inspiration to keep up the 'good struggle' for empathic practice in my work. 

Of measurement and knowledge

In her comment on my last post Marian Kat highlighted an area of concern to me: namely that many good and excellent professionals in the museum and library world hardly have time to reflect on their work amongst others because of money and time constraints. One dimension to her comment I think deserves attention: the dialectics of grants.

Part of my work consists of fundraising for educational projects for museums and libraries. When you – like I do – so strongly feel that (non formal) education is important, you have to make it possible I believe. And thus coincidentally I found myself developing knowledge and skills on funds and fundraising for this goal. As such I have noticed that over the years the demands of grants and subsidies have shown a strong tendency towards SMART(ER)-ness. As far as I am concerned this in large part is understandable and to some extent justifiable.

But lately I do feel that we are completely going overboard. We want to be able to measure anything and everything, and we increasingly tend to limit our knowledge to what we can and do measure. Anything else is "esoteric" "spiritual" or, the most deadly of all "irrelevant". Simultaneously we do acknowledge that there are still so many things that we do know and which we cannot measure. I consciously do no put “yet” in that sentence. Because to me that would imply that being able and capable to measure everything is the goal of our activities. And that is something I do not agree with, not in quanitative research nor in qualitative research. To me there will always be space between words and interpretation to numbers that are vital to make meaning.

Having said that, the dialectic of grants does pose interesting challenges to especially non-formal education. Because in order to prove their worth and work, non-formal education programmes have to adhere to the logics of formal education, to toolbox logics and SMART-formulations of goals. Ironically in order to obtain funds to demonstrate their true value. It’s a difficult position: proving your worth via a logics that is not inherent to your activities, vision and goals. Moreover: that you basically at least in part oppose. Many non-formal educational programmes and activities (aim to) go to the heart of education: to the attitude of children and adults. But how do you measure a change in attitude? This is the question that many museums, libraries and science centers see themselves confronted with. It’s something that I struggle with for clients.

Recently while browsing the library of the University of Humanistics, where I take part in an inspiration course on Meaning and Power in organizations, I stumbled upon one of their newly acquired publications: Getting Involved. A great read, I am only half way still (lack of timeJ) but this is a truly inspirational book. In the chapter Pedagogy for Citizenship Ruth Deakin-Circk explores how in different studies the impact of pedagogical methods such as debates, narratives, role-play etc on the attitudinal level has been demonstrated. The overviews in this article would provide grand assistance to anybody looking to for scienctific foundation for their work and, maybe more importantly, for any professional in doubt of the contribution of alternative teaching methods. Methods which often form the core of non-formal education. In a further chapter in this book I read about how narratives have been successfully used to measure impact at the attitudinal level. Both the overview provided and the attention paid to narratives as instrument for measuring have inspired me. Hopefully anytime soon I will get an opportunity to put this inspiration into practice. In the meantime, I would love to learn from people who have done reasearch into this or who would be interested in this type of measurement. Maybe we can form a team and provide museums, libraries and science centers with a valuable road ahead!