This Monday past I went to the launch of the UK Museums Association’s ‘Museums Change Lives’ vision document. And I will say that as ever, it is nice to hear and read a good few confident assertions of why our work as (museums) professionals actually matters. And it is good to have a large organisation such as the Museums Association put themselves out there and say, Yes! This is what we think we (can) contribute to society. I’ve already referenced the document in a grant application. The next step, David Anderson, President of the MA, and Maurice Davies, their Head of Policy, explained will be for the MA to engage in-depth with funders and decision-makers, do some lobbying, get the doubters behind the vision. And that’s great.
The thing is, despite the above, the document leaves me a bit cold. It starts off with a set of ten principles, of which some seem rather commonplace  – especially to someone with a background in interpretation. Museums offer ‘excellent experiences that meet public needs’, the principles say for example, and museums ‘engage with contemporary issues’, and are ‘rooted in places’. Read (and I can’t believe I’m quoting Freeman Tilden here): relate, reveal, and sense of place. So my first reaction to the principles was to think, but we know this already. This is not the issue.
The document then makes further statements under the three headings of Museums Enhance Wellbeing, Museums Create Better Places, and Museums Inspire People and Ideas. My concern here is that the statements made are not actually supported by any research. Of course, this is a vision document – it doesn’t need to be supported by research. However, as we’re talking about impact here (the document is ‘The MA’s vision for the impact of museums’) I had hoped for something more reflective of the discussions and research already going on around impact. Museums and the heritage sector have for a long time asserted their positive impact on, or contribution to society. What researchers and policy-makers have been grappling with for years is how to measure this impact. ‘Museums Change Lives’ doesn’t reflect that at all.
There are also a few assumptions in the document that I think would benefit from a more critical elaboration. The one that jumped out at me is the work that museums should do with ‘disaffected people and those from marginalised sections of the community’ (under Museums Enhance Wellbeing). As I’ve reported here, this is still an essentially hegemonic view of ‘the other’ that needs to be brought into the fold of the majority. But do they? Again, I appreciate that this is a vision document, and yet, as so many critical discussions are already taking place around these issues, I just can’t help but feel that in including these assumptions without at least a nod of acknowledgement to the associated issues, the document opens itself up to easy dismissal by those not converted to the cause in question.
Finally, and I am sorry if I sound too critical of what in the end is still a very worthwhile effort: the document really feels as if it was already decided on before the research into public attitudes was completed. Select findings from the research are included, but they are blatantly reinterpreted: While research participants ‘strongly rejected’  the purpose of promoting social justice, and merely felt that museums should be ‘accessible and inclusive to all’ in terms of free entry and aids for the disabled , the vision document states that the public’s support for accessibility  is intrinsically connected to social justice, thus reiterating that promoting social justice is a purpose museums should pursue.
I applaud the MA for having started a really good discussion. Museums 2020 was a great stimulus, and the research into public attitudes (while perhaps not as comprehensive as one might have wished) was still very, very useful. Museums Change Lives is bound to be quoted often, and hopefully as it is put out there now it will encourage further conversations – maybe also of the issues that I’ve highlighted. I’m supporting it, but I’ll also continue to look for that research, that critical analysis that doesn’t contend itself with stating beliefs and giving examples of work we think fits the bill.
 Let me immediately qualify this: The feeling behind the document, and one borne out to some extent by the sectors’ responses to the MA’s Museums 2020 discussion paper, is that many museums aren’t actually implementing these principles yet. And although it doesn’t feel to me that this applies to very many museums, I was at a workshop yesterday where participants confessed to having a ‘conservative attitude’ about museum curatorship. Of course, they were at a workshop on co-production, so their commitment to change is obvious.
 BritainThinks, 2013. Public perceptions of – and attitudes to- the purposes of museum sin society. A report prepared by BritainThinks for Museums Association, p.20
 On a side note, accessibility really shouldn’t have to even be mentioned anymore at this stage. Any person responsible for interpretation/presentation/management in museums who is not considering access should not hold their job. Yes, that’s how strongly I feel about this. This is like telling an archaeologist not to use a digger when excavating Richard III’s body.