Museum Practice. Группа авторов

values of a particular code become less relevant as its original context shifts over time. In a later workshop, Michael Pickering, Head of Curatorial and Research at the NMA, noted that national, international, discipline-based, and institution-based ethics codes and conventions too often contradict one another, leaving practitioners in a muddle about how to proceed (Pickering 2011).

FIGURE 4.1 Participant responses to the question: “Why this change in museum ethics now?”

In the UK, the focus of museum ethics has waxed and waned as the profession has developed. Merriman pointed out that the MA first produced a code of conduct as late as the 1970s, and it was directed solely at curators. It was not until the 1990s that the MA produced a code relevant to the profession as a whole. By 2001, a revised code referenced a range of ethics issues across many areas of the museum, including responsibilities for public engagement; however, in today’s economic climate, the focus has shifted back to collections and disposal issues (Museums Association 2008). Participants in the research network, including Nick Poole of the Collections Trust, voiced concern that this shift back to collections has driven museums to become too inward-looking, at the expense of putting equal emphasis on their social roles.

The new museum ethics offers a pathway to redirect this inward focus and to recognize codes as part of a larger body of ethics guidance. It draws on a range of disciplines, including philosophy, sociology, political science, and information technology, to provide museums with the tools and confidence to respond proactively to the challenges and opportunities they face. The key idea is that ethics is a dynamic social practice that encourages dialogue and critical thinking, with the aim of developing socially purposeful museums. And, as IDEA CETL project partner James Dempsey explained, ethics discourse emerges from a triad of three distinct, overlapping spheres: case studies (both from within and outside the sector); ethics codes; and values and principles (Figure 4.2).

      What is the value of case studies for the new museum ethics? IDEA CETL Director, Christopher Megone, explains that the use of applied ethics case studies from a range of disciplines – medical ethics to media ethics – can help museums to negotiate difficult issues; for example, by encouraging them to move away from the polarized positions of stakeholder groups toward finding points of similarity which can advance equitable solutions. Indeed, the new museum ethics does not settle for consensus that may exclude minority or radical views, but instead welcomes conflicting perspectives as a constructive contribution (Lynch 2011). This is not an easy process, nor will case studies from across disciplines give museums all the answers, but it does provide a model for ethics leadership and practice.

FIGURE 4.2 The three spheres of contemporary ethics discourse.

      What is the significance for museum ethics discourse of identifying and applying values and principles? In network conversations, an embrace of museum activism was juxtaposed with the dangers of accepting the continued absence of value- based ethics in sector debates. For network participants such as David Anderson, Director General, Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales, ethical thinking was a “way of being” which permeated the whole museum; however, the group identified fractures in the museum sector, including inequalities of resource and action, that could mitigate against the adoption of the new museum ethics. For example, Anderson drew attention to the geographical hierarchy entrenched in UK museum funding, with London institutions receiving the majority of private contributions.

      Some of the participants mooted the impact of a personal ethics code for museum professionals in response to institutional silence on issues of social responsibility, thereby effectively protecting structures of cultural authority derived from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. David Fleming, Director, National Museums Liverpool, argued that the existence of an “unspoken set of values” enabled museums to prioritize their collections over social engagement. According to many in the network, vested interests in maintaining the status quo could present a challenge to the new museum ethics.

      The research network expressed a compelling need for change in museums through the framework of new museum ethics. Participants were receptive to the premise of the research network: namely, that new methods, new ways of thinking and a more strategic approach are required to effect organizational change and to ensure that museums are adequately equipped to develop responsive ethical policies, procedures, and decision-making, now and in the future. There is need for an ethics that enables museums to be nimble and adapt to changing circumstances. We are currently on the threshold of change in which the social role and value of museums will become increasingly significant (Museums Association 2013). The research network viewed the new museum ethics as a catalyst that can help museums to step over this threshold.

Analysis and discussion: key ideas from the network workshops

In this section, we explore the key findings from each of the workshops and identify the patterns that emerged. Throughout the process, participants used the workshop themes – social engagement; transparency; shared guardianship of collections; moving beyond canonicity; and sustainability – to raise ethics issues at the core of what and whom museums are for. Overarching threads of discussion called for: a radical overhaul of museums in terms of structure, purpose, and values; embedding social responsibility as a core value alongside care and research of collections; and collaborative action across the sector in order to meet the above aims. The group was critical of UK museums’ longstanding silence on ethical issues beyond the use of codes; in fact, many participants agreed that ethics codes are used as a justification for museums to avoid more complex ethics discussions, particularly around social responsibility. They welcomed evidence that aspirations such as shared guardianship can be translated into practice, while acknowledging that this was not easy work and required museums coming to terms with complexity and uncertainty.

      Members of the network characterized ethics as an expensive (in terms of human resources) but powerful tool in its capacity to function as a set of lived values which connects ideas with actions and consequences. Thus, self-reflective practice and long-term collaborative relationships with communities, on which the new museum ethics depends, each require an additional investment in time. It is not enough to “bolt on” the new museum ethics to current museum structures because these structures are fundamentally undemocratic, underpinned by outdated values and hierarchies that perpetuate inequalities. Network participants voiced their concern that museums’ focus on ownership of “property” (collections) encourages work in isolation from their communities, at the expense of developing relations among people. They also embraced interdisciplinary articulations of values and principles; for example, Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948) was cited as a strongly worded, inalienable principle and persuasive statement of intent (Anderson 2012). Similarly, the Physicians Charter and the Hippocratic Oath each articulates principles that necessitate action. Network participants also identified empathy as being as important as legislation in fostering social engagement. These threads of discussion form the backdrop to specific issues debated in the respective workshops, which we consider next.

      Social engagement

      Participants in the workshop on social engagement concluded that social responsibility defines the twenty-first-century ethical museum, in which “democratic pluralism, shared authority and social justice are distinct but convergent areas of policy” (Marstine 2011a, 10). Workshop contributors agreed that, in order to realize the potential of social responsibility in museums, radical change was necessary, but achievable. Director of Policy and Research, Glasgow Life, Mark O’Neill critiqued what he called a “welfare