about the practical implications of the new museum ethics that will require further research, responses from participants affirm the significance of the five ethics themes on which the network focused. Responses from contributors also emphasize the value for museums in forging new relationships with communities, built upon participation, mutual understanding, and joint decision-making. Through incorporating unpublished group discussions, the chapter captures the distinct voices of network participants as they collaborate, speaking freely and experimenting with new ideas. In this way, we hope to model one strand of how new museum ethics discourse might develop to chart a course for change in the museum. Comments made by contributors to the five workshops are quoted throughout the text; the Appendix provides a full list of contributors for each workshop. Where appropriate, references have been made to publications that further extend or elucidate the themes discussed.
The new museum ethics: why is change needed, and why now?
As Marstine has described, museums are facing some of the most serious challenges in their history but the sector is unable to adapt or respond effectively to these challenges (Marstine 2011b, xxiii). New opportunities to become socially responsible are going unrecognized and unmet. Many museums are currently under-resourced and, as a result, innovative agendas to promote social engagement are often abandoned in favor of conventional approaches to practice. Financial pressures are forcing museum leaders to make choices in the short term that may compromise the work of institutions in the longer term.
Of great concern is the sector’s inadequate engagement with the shifting ethics landscape. Museum professional bodies and the museums they represent have long relied on ethics codes to define their policy and practice. Introduced by the American Association of Museums in 1925, the Museums Association in the 1970s, and the International Council of Museums in 1986 (Besterman 2006, 433–435), such codes remain the touchstone of museum ethics today. This dependence, in turn, reflects the prioritization of skill development and standard setting that characterized the museum and museum studies sectors for much of the last century. The focus on professional ethics has played a significant role in distinguishing public service from personal gain and political interests. Ironically, it has also insulated museums from social concerns in the world around them. Gary Edson’s seminal volume Museum Ethics advanced this notion of ethics as an inward looking process of professionalization; “Museum ethics is not about the imposition of external values on museums, but about an understanding of the foundations of museum practices” (Edson 1997, xxi). By contrast, the shifting terrain around museums drives a critique of common practice: change is needed to address the current and future needs of society.
The understanding of ethics as a code has led to a “legalistic” approach that too often produces reactive and incremental change instead of the responsive and holistic thinking for which the new museum ethics argues. While there are increasingly strident calls for stronger reinforcement of ethics codes and legal interventions, the question remains: are ethics codes fit for purpose (Marstine 2011a)?
Recent social, economic, political, and technological trends have sparked a developing discourse about the moral agency of museums that contests the authorized view of ethics. Richard Sandell has argued persuasively that objectivity is an elusive stance that imparts value through the invoked authority of the institution. Sandell uses the term “moral activism” to suggest a direction for museums to realize their potential as agents of social change both inside and outside the museum (Sandell 2007, p. x). Hilde Hein identifies what she calls an “institutional morality,” asserting that, while museums may not have a conscience, they do have moral agency (Hein 2000, 91–93, 103). Moving beyond personal and professional ethics, institutional morality suggests that, while museum staff may come and go, their activities across time and place create an institutional, and also a sectoral, ethics.
When asked why new thinking is required in museum ethics now, participants in the research network cited both short- and long-term trends in policy and practice. Figure 4.1 shows that these factors included: the shifting political climate in the UK; pressures for museums to be more accountable; and the need to make fundamental changes to the model of the museum itself, including how knowledge is conceived, notions of “who” owns what and “who” has a say in the interpretation and use of collections. However, for some participants this question only raised more questions, including what is meant by “change” and what is meant by “now.”
A premise that underpins the development of the new museum ethics is that professional ethics codes alone do not suffice; as a default instrument of ethical practice, they do not adequately equip museums to deal sensitively and fairly with the shifting ethical terrain. Exploring this premise in the first workshop, John Jackson, Science Policy Advisor at the Natural History Museum, London, asserted that traditional ethics codes represent a particular set of values intended to prescribe how museum professionals should “properly” behave. Nick Merriman, MA project partner and Manchester Museum Director, stressed that each ethics code encapsulates the moment or context in which it is written so that it effectively becomes “fixed” in time. Director of Policy and Research, Glasgow Life, Mark O’Neill, added that the underlying 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.
