Qatar’s rising museum scene: from current challenges to new insights on museum leadership

Unprecedented Leadership

<p>Museum leadership is an under investigated area of museum studies. This dissertation contributes to museum leadership research by applying leadership theory to a case study of the career of Jim Geddes, a museum director who works in the town of Gore in Southland, New Zealand. In 2008 Geddes won Museums Aotearoa's inaugural Individual Achievement Award for putting Gore on the national cultural map by establishing the Eastern Southland Gallery, the Hokonui Heritage Centre, the Croydon Aviation Museum and for expanding Gore's Historical Museum. How did Geddes achieve this successful cultural entrepreneurship in such an unlikely small rural town? The central research question asks how leadership has manifested itself in Gore's museums during Geddes' tenure from 1983 to the present. The theoretical framework draws on leadership theory, particularly the work of Suchy and others, who theorise leadership as a social practice rather than a set of management techniques. Several qualitative research methods are employed including interviews with Geddes and key museum stakeholders coupled with a review of how the media have presented Geddes' work. This research data is then compared against leadership theory, noting the convergences and divergences. The dissertation is the first in-depth New Zealand study to test the application of contemporary leadership theory to one museum leader's practice. The findings reveal that, while Geddes is not a conscious leader, his practice has a striking similarity to the engaging transformational leadership model in terms of stakeholder engagement and the inter-personal and emotional elements of leadership. This research provides a deeper understanding of the career of a successful local museum director, suggesting that a sense of place can function as a mechanism for museum leaders to profitably engage with stakeholders. It also presents the argument that successful leadership is a practice, a mode of operating and interacting with others that if consistently applied can spark a series of positive events for museums and their leaders. After considering the implications of this case study for museum practice, training and professional development, the dissertation concludes with five recommendations to improve museum leadership development in New Zealand.</p>

<p>Museum leadership is an under investigated area of museum studies. This dissertation contributes to museum leadership research by applying leadership theory to a case study of the career of Jim Geddes, a museum director who works in the town of Gore in Southland, New Zealand. In 2008 Geddes won Museums Aotearoa's inaugural Individual Achievement Award for putting Gore on the national cultural map by establishing the Eastern Southland Gallery, the Hokonui Heritage Centre, the Croydon Aviation Museum and for expanding Gore's Historical Museum. How did Geddes achieve this successful cultural entrepreneurship in such an unlikely small rural town? The central research question asks how leadership has manifested itself in Gore's museums during Geddes' tenure from 1983 to the present. The theoretical framework draws on leadership theory, particularly the work of Suchy and others, who theorise leadership as a social practice rather than a set of management techniques. Several qualitative research methods are employed including interviews with Geddes and key museum stakeholders coupled with a review of how the media have presented Geddes' work. This research data is then compared against leadership theory, noting the convergences and divergences. The dissertation is the first in-depth New Zealand study to test the application of contemporary leadership theory to one museum leader's practice. The findings reveal that, while Geddes is not a conscious leader, his practice has a striking similarity to the engaging transformational leadership model in terms of stakeholder engagement and the inter-personal and emotional elements of leadership. This research provides a deeper understanding of the career of a successful local museum director, suggesting that a sense of place can function as a mechanism for museum leaders to profitably engage with stakeholders. It also presents the argument that successful leadership is a practice, a mode of operating and interacting with others that if consistently applied can spark a series of positive events for museums and their leaders. After considering the implications of this case study for museum practice, training and professional development, the dissertation concludes with five recommendations to improve museum leadership development in New Zealand.</p>

The museum field is experiencing a critical gaze that is both “of the moment” and long overdue. Museums were built as colonial enterprises and are slow to awaken to the harm caused by their actions which are not limited to the capturing and keeping of Indigenous ancestors, the exclusion and erasure of Black voices, bodies, and creativity, and the positioning of white power in the C-suite and board rooms. For decades, the conversation about equity and inclusion in the museum field has become louder. It is no longer possible to ignore the systemic racism embedded in our society and our profession. The Inclusive Museum Leader offers insights and perspectives from two recognized museums leaders who have joined together to offer practical solutions and opportunities for today’s museum leaders. Authors share their journeys to becoming inclusive leaders, as well as decisions they have made and actions they have taken to build equitable practices within their organizations. Throughout the book are personal exercises and provocations the reader is invited to respond to, making the book a valuable tool for any museum leader looking to enhance their style and re-frame their decision-making process.

The museum field is experiencing a critical gaze that is both “of the moment” and long overdue. Museums were built as colonial enterprises and are slow to awaken to the harm caused by their actions which are not limited to the capturing and keeping of Indigenous ancestors, the exclusion and erasure of Black voices, bodies, and creativity, and the positioning of white power in the C-suite and board rooms. For decades, the conversation about equity and inclusion in the museum field has become louder. It is no longer possible to ignore the systemic racism embedded in our society and our profession. The Inclusive Museum Leader offers insights and perspectives from two recognized museums leaders who have joined together to offer practical solutions and opportunities for today’s museum leaders. Authors share their journeys to becoming inclusive leaders, as well as decisions they have made and actions they have taken to build equitable practices within their organizations. Throughout the book are personal exercises and provocations the reader is invited to respond to, making the book a valuable tool for any museum leader looking to enhance their style and re-frame their decision-making process.

In the context of the shift towards participatory practices within museums, museum engagement with social media represents a form of organizational change. This study approaches social media and the corresponding organizational change from a museum leader’s perspective, utilizing data from a broad cross-section of 82 museums in Norway. We address how the characteristics of a museum and its leader impact social media attitudes, behaviors and intention towards social media-based change. Combining factor analysis and clustering techniques, we identify four museum leader ‘types’ who are primarily defined by their (1) perception of museum benefits from social media, (2) perception of own and museum support in social media activities, (3) perception of conflicts that arise from social media usage, and (4) social media-related values. With museums being asked to more fully embrace the participatory potential of social media, this study points to significant differences in readiness to change across museum leaders.

"Gillman, Derek Anthony, (born 7 Dec. 1952), Distinguished Teaching Professor, Art History and Museum Leadership, Antoinette Westphal College of Media Arts and Design, since 2016, and Executive Director, University Collections and Exhibitions, Drexel University, since 2021 (Distinguished Visiting Professor, 2014–16; Senior Adviser to President for University Collections, 2018–21)" published on by Oxford University Press.

Emerging at the end of the twentieth century, non-profit sector has taken on a new significance. Non-governmental organisations, health institutions, educational institutions and museums are examples for the variety of non-profit organisations. Museums are defined as the symbols of national cultures and bridges uniting the past with the present. However, it may be suggested that this definition has lost its validity on a large scale due to globalism that penetrated into our lives in the twentieth century. Globalism and multiculturalism played an important role in the industrialisation of culture, and being the symbols of culture, museums assumed the form of dynamics within this industry. Accordingly, the concept of museum leadership gained importance. The increasing competition amongst museums makes leadership more crucial. Compared to other sectors, museums have not been studied enough in terms of leadership and the late, but the necessary attempt to improve museum leadership is of vital importance for cultural industry. This study first discusses leadership and non-profit organisations separately, and afterwards, it investigates into leadership in non-profit organisations. Lastly, it elaborates on museum leadership, which is a popular concept of the modern day.

"Gillman, Derek Anthony, (born 7 Dec. 1952), Distinguished Teaching Professor, Art History and Museum Leadership, Antoinette Westphal College of Media Arts and Design, since 2016, and Executive Director, University Collections and Exhibitions, Drexel University, since 2021 (Distinguished Visiting Professor, 2014–16; Senior Adviser to President for University Collections, 2018–21)" published on by Oxford University Press.

A small group of people are heaping criticism on the leaders of the new Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) as they pursue construction of a new building. I’ve received a great many emails from these critics’ publicist asking our journal to “cover the issue,” without understanding that this is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal that encourages debate over museum management and practice. They shared eleven opinion pieces written by one journalist1 1 The following are the claims made by a journalist about the illegitimacy of the new LACMA Campus: Giovanni, J. October 2020 https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/10/02/the-demolition-of-lacma-art-sacrificed-to-architecture/ July 2020 https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/lacma-town-museum-urban-catalyst/ May 2020 https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/lacma-demolition-under-cover-of-covid-19/ February 2020 https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/lacma-part-going-rogue/ https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/lacma-part-ii-spamming-public/ https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/lacma-part-iii-way-forward/ April 2019 https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/lacma-suicide-by-architecture/ August 2016 https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/dead-late-august-zumthors-lacma-folly-continues/ July 2015 https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/inconvenient-truths-at-lacma/ April 2015 https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/peter-zumthor-lacma-preacher-wrong-church/ July 2014 https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/frank-gehry-design-lacma/ that expressed a singular dislike for the new museum concept and the museum’s leadership. But none stood up to scrutiny on their merit. The Citizens Brigade to Save LACMA declined to submit their thesis as a Forum for this issue, but after some thought on the press about the demolition, I thought I would use the subject of this special issue to consider what this case study suggests about the legitimacy crises that can threaten continuity in a museum’s leadership. I have not interviewed any of the leaders of LACMA and write this editorial from the perspective of a dispassionate observer reading the public declarations on both sides of the debate. The central issue seems to be the debate around public communications by leadership, transparency in the accessioning and deaccessioning policy, and the legitimacy of the organization’s board of directors as a stewards of art on behalf of a diverse citizenry. The razing of the old LACMA campus offers museum leaders a chance to think about what constitutes public integrity and the relationship of architecture to a museum’s mission. For historical reference, LACMA grew, for nearly a century, into a hodge-podge collection of buildings by well-known architects. Like many of the world’s major museums, additions on additions represented each era of museum priorities and styles. By 2013, the museum management decided that it was time to just erase the accretion, cleanse the property, and build a new building designed by yet another internationally respected museum architect. For full disclosure, I’m a museum researcher, a psychologist and an architect. I have visited the former LACMA chaos and tend to agree with leadership that the campus was a bit of a mess. But that mess was not out of place in tinsel town. I can understand the museum leadership’s desire to jettison the architectural history in one grand sweep, but the complexities of public politics is where the lessons seem to nest. Art museums tend to attract affluent and socially well-positioned donors to their board. Their visitors are more likely to represent an educated affluent community, which inevitably leads to a challenge of how public resources are allocated (see: Ostrower, 2020). For example, public resources are used to sustain “the arts” are seldom equitably distributed. Under normal circumstances, the underclasses and lower castes accept that government resources will be diverted to the affluent and acknowledge the theater that purports egalitarian access to art, but also have experiences that confirm their own exclusion (Dawson, 2014; Isselhart & Cross, 2020; Maldonado & Nguyen, 2020). In LACMA’s case, the existing buildings were lauded as exemplary architecture of their time. They were purported to represent the art of architecture. While other museum types may build functional tools for their purpose, art museums justify the high premiums for name architects to represent the art of architecture. The destruction of the former campus (Figure 1) makes clear that the rationale supporting architecture as an art has failed. Here we turn to the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) in the USA, an in-group collective of leaders that recently relaxed their standards for deaccessioning to support funding museum maintenance through sale of collections. The American Alliance of Museums deaccessioning guidelines also suggest that secure stewardship of any collection be part of the decision regarding transfer or sale. Again, for full disclosure, the organization where I work did the membership surveys that led to the AAM deaccessioning guidelines (American Alliance of Museums, 2016). Few museum professionals would find purchase of an artwork with the intent to destroy, acceptable, even if the funds could sustain the current facility. Would any art museum leader retain legitimacy if their donors know that ancient masters could land on a pyre in exchange for a bit of currency? Lastly, leadership has suggested that failure of functionality and mission led to their decision to destroy the campus. This rationale has three parts: (1) the buildings themselves were not suited to current exhibition ambitions; (2) the campus collections were failing to equitably serve their community; and (3) the cost of retrofit was prohibitive. All three justifications can be rebutted by considering the Whitney Museum’s decision to simply move. The Whitney has ensured that a masterwork of the Brutalist school of architecture remains to serve its function and as a memory of the era. The LACMA campus is now a construction site (Figure 1). The former campus, like so many heritage structures demolished by modernist zeal, is remembered in photographs, technical drawings, and the memories of former visitors. LACMA leadership faced criticism that the new building will have less space than the former. This matter is a red herring for assessing the value of a museum. Buildings are assessed based on their efficiency, not the amount of area they occupy. That is a matter of engineering. Shrinking a museum may increase value for users if the focus is clear, and the exhibitions more useful. But we fail to see this justification presented by LACMA leadership. The result is disheartening because a more useful building for the museum’s mission is the central value of commissioning a construction. By speaking to purpose, efficiency of use, and a commitment to the future, the leadership can claim legitimacy with how it has struggled to reconcile it’s future with its past. But alas, that argument has not been offered. And the argument does not hold water since they did not consider transfer of their campus to others. The legitimation risk LACMA leadership now faces is the question of use of public assets and a violation of the public trust. Like so many sports stadiums that were constructed with public funds, only to line the pockets of the entrepreneurs who own the sports teams and their branded income, LACMA leadership and governing board have opened themselves to a question of whether their actions, as well-paid staff and affluent members of the Los Angeles area, are working in the public interest? When tax payers are asked to carry the financial burden for public buildings, they expect that these facilities will outlast the mortgage. They accept and even vote to tax themselves in the interest of building venerable institutions that demonstrate pride of place. Leaders can be quickly purged from office when they lose the public trust by wasting tax dollars or destroying public architecture that was sold to them as a legacy investment. Public museums confront a cultural crisis when their governing boards change the rules to suit personal taste. Undermining the inherent logic of how they direct their funds toward the public good is a claim of representation, and they occupy their positions of leadership at the will of the public. When they demonstrate leadership in the public interest through reliable public research, transparency, and public process, they will be seen to be acting legitimately on behalf of the community they serve. When claims to authority are based exclusively on the opinions of the leaders, their legitimacy to lead is eroded. When they are perceived to be serving their own interests and tastes, their actions will be considered a misdirection of public resources, and they find themselves on the wrong end of the pitchforks. The Citizens Brigade to Save LACMA has failed to bring down the leadership of an institution, primarily because the campaign misdirected its critique. They failed to deconstruct the central issues of rationality, heritage merit, and opportunity cost. When leadership finds itself accused of Machiavellian tactics, the right to continued leadership is imperiled. Museum leaders should tread this ground with care because a legitimation crisis can lose the loyalty of its service community, and the result will destroy reputations, careers, and bring to heel our most venerated institutions. John Fraser, Editor (johnf@knology.org) is a conservation psychologist, architect, and the President & CEO of Knology Ltd., a social science research institute based in the USA.

In this research, I explore a novel conceptual model to investigate the role of knowledge management in small and mid-sized art museums and science museums in the United States. I adapt the constructs of knowledge management enablers and a knowledge management orientation to study how knowledge management is situated within these museums and its relationship to broad dimensions of a museum's organizational performance and public value. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed, comprising a national survey of museum leaders followed by semi-structured interviews with a subset of survey respondents. Analysis of survey data from 191 museums identified strong, positive, and significant predictive relationships between the constructs of my conceptual model while also uncovering critical gaps in museums' efforts to create, manage, and share organizational knowledge. These gaps limited museums' organizational performance and their ability to create public value. Interviews with 45 museum leaders uncovered the beneficial practices and barriers of knowledge management enablers and a knowledge management orientation. I found that museums exhibiting more beneficial practices than barriers attained heightened organizational performance and an enhanced ability to create public value when compared to museums that did not. Integrative analysis of the surveys and interviews identified a convergence of findings for knowledge management enablers and a knowledge management orientation, strengthening the links between these two critical constructs and their respective links to organizational performance and public value. Divergent findings for organizational performance were observed between the surveys and interviews, but common to both were the substantive challenges museums faced in creating and achieving public value. My research extends the literature and empirical study of both knowledge management and museums, serving as the first of its kind to apply knowledge management enablers and a knowledge management orientation to museums while also developing a new conceptual model to assess their links to museum performance and public value. My findings create a solid foundation for continuing my own research agenda on museums, knowledge management, and public value while opening new pathways for information science researchers. Additionally, the practical implications of this research provide museum leaders with an understanding of how their role in enabling knowledge management practices can improve their museums' overall performance and ability to create public value.

Museum crisisThe provincial museums and the National Museum at a time of changeSophus Müller (1846-1934) was one of the more controversial leaders in the Danish museum world. He was employed as a museum keeper at the Old Nordic Museum in 1885 in connection with the death of its renowned leader, J.J.A. Worsaae, who was succeeded by C.F. Herbst. The new keeper was entrusted with many administrative tasks, one of which was the handling of the relationship between the National Museum and the then seven provincial museums: Ribe (founded 1855), Århus (1860), Odense (1860), Viborg (1861), Aalborg (1865), Randers (1872), and Maribo (1879).The relation ship between the former museum leaders – C.J. Thomsen and Worsaae – and the provincial museums had been characterised by mutual respect and helpfulness, but with Sophus Müller the relations became strained and marked by conflicts (figs. 1-2).From 1885, the provincial museums applied annually for state subsidies on the grounds that they wanted to prevent the trade and export of artefacts. In April 1887, the Ministry for Ecclesiastical and Educational Affairs brought out a report stating the future rules for state subsidy for provincial museums. These rules were drawn up by Sophus Müller and discussed at a meeting in Aalborg in 1887 – the first joint meeting between museums of cultural history in the country. The representative of the provincial museums was Gustav Lotze from the muse um in Odense. He was especially concerned about the demand of state supervision with the provincial museums. Nevertheless, the museums were unprepared and so the outcome of the meeting was a bland letter to the ministry, which consequently paid no attention to the approach (fig. 3).Sophus Müller’s administration of the 1887-rules was strongly challenged by many provincial museums, who resented the lack of cooperation, the trammels concerning the right to carry out excavations and the duty to hand over important finds to the museum in Copenhagen. The last issue especially caused concern and frustration, but it never became a topic at the official meetings between the leaders of the National Museum and the provincial museums, which took place in Århus in 1894 and in Copenhagen in 1897. The frustration thus never led to any change in the conditions for the provincial museums, mainly because the museum leaders disagreed about the demands to be made on the National Museum. In 1912, the same negative destiny befell an excessive proposal from the museum in Randers (figs. 4-5).Sophus Miüller was a competent archaeologist, but his managerial style regarding administration was never popular with the provincial museum s nor with the National Museum staff Also, he was extremely unpopular with most of the antique dealers trading in artefacts allover the country. Of these and the farmhands that plundered the burial mounds he was an implacable enemy. Sophus Müller never learned how to tackle these people, nor did he ever understand their way of thinking. In this respect he had great support from the provincial museums and from the few private individuals that acted as the links between him and the population (figs. 6-7).The era when Sophus Müller was the leader of the Danish museum system was also one of great change in the Danish society. Industry was booming and about to bring new wealth to the country and both the formations of parties and the democratisation process were developing. Sophus Müller, who was a genuine Copenhagener and very conservative, found it difficult to keep up with these changes. The fact that the farmers were gaining power through ”venstre” (a Danish Liberal political party) troubled him (fig. 8). Another problem was his severe hardness of hearing, which contributed to isolating him from the social life. Consequently, he devoted him self to work and research.Sophus Müller continued his archaeological research for many years following his retirement in 1921. His last work, a treatise on the Iron Age, was published in 1933. He died a few months later, in February the following year.Niels Løgager NielsenGasmuseetTranslated by Annette Lerche Trolle

Museums are local‐to‐global organizations operating in a digitized, distributed, and diverse 21st century world. Museums leaders face significant challenges in achieving broader relevance, meaningful engagement, and equitable outreach. This article examines the transformative potential of digitized collections to increase public engagement and enhance authentic educational efforts of museums, with specific emphasis on visual media as a key resource to achieve these outcomes. Using digitized collections to broaden learning opportunities and support a wide range of users will require museum leaders to engage in strategic digitization efforts—supplementing research images, making conscious decisions about meeting educational needs when setting digitization policies, and investing in meaningful outreach with digitized collections. Educational opportunities are contextualized with brief case studies of authentic investigations for middle school learners using digitized objects from a natural history museum. Three lessons learned during development and evaluation are described and implications for museum leaders are discussed.

This thesis investigates how the Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA can strive to be more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible within its collections and exhibits. By understanding the cultural insights of visitors, potential visitors, staff, and one member of the board of trustees through anthropological inquiry, museum leaders can utilize this information to better serve the stakeholders within the greater community that the museum aims to represent. The results of this research provide valuable insights into why people visit the museum, and which exhibits or artifacts are popular among both first time and recurring visitors. In addition, the results also provide context for obstacles that prevent people from visiting, shed insight into power dynamics between staff, museum leaders, and public stakeholders and how these can limit diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the museum. By drawing on postmodernism, and political economy within anthropology, this thesis sheds a deeper insight into issues of DEI at the Museum of Flight, and ultimately, what steps the museum can take to be more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible to all stakeholders within its collections and exhibits.

ABSTRACTThis paper provides a formative evaluation of The Art Institute of Chicago’s initial efforts to diversify the museum field through the Diversifying Art Museum Leadership Initiative (DAMLI) programme. DAMLI is supported by the Walton Family Foundation and Ford Foundation as part of a movement to diversify the arts & cultural workforce in the United States. In Spring, 2018 the author was contracted to evaluate the museum-wide initiative to systematize and improve the experiences of high school, college, and graduate interns from demographic groups currently underrepresented in museum leadership fields. Through the use of [Fraser, N. (1995). Reframing justice in a globalizing world. New Left Review, 36, 1–19.] social justice framework, this paper will focus on the recruitment, selection, and management of internship experiences of the first four cohorts of undergraduate and graduate-level interns within the programme. The paper begins with an overview of recent diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the arts & cultural sector – highlighting the systemic issues leading to the need for such initiatives and presenting a typology for organisational responses to the issue. This paper then categorise the type of organisational change sought by The Art Institute of Chicago based on Fraser’s two-dimensional social justice conditions and remedies framework in order to assess whether or not the Art Institute is achieving its goal of attracting, retaining, and empowering a diverse set of students and influencing their decision to pursue a career in the museum field by providing an equitable and inclusive environment during the internship. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of the broader implications of this work for arts and cultural organisations interested in diversifying the cultural workforce.