As director of a graduate museum studies program, I find myself listening to research proposals from graduate students and fellow faculty, my colleagues’ presentations at conferences like AAM, ICOM, and the Inclusive Museum Conference. I am fortunate to be able to soak in the various examples of museum research and practice, from both the practitioner and the academic perspective. In either setting, I find myself returning to a question that too few ask at the start of their work: WHY? This three-letter question, why, is a simple one for understanding the complex value of our unique contribution as museum professionals and researchers. But I also ask WHY do we rarely ask “Why?” in earnest? Rarer still, do we ever publicly answer this question well? The notion of “Start with Why” is heavily endorsed by sales and branding personnel such as leadership guru Simon Sinek (Sinek, 2011). I often say to my fellow researchers, “I KNOW your research is important, but tell me WHY it is important – articulate your value to the profession and society!” Stepping into the role of Associate Editor for Curator: The Museum Journal’s Research Practice Forum, I am actively interested in using this opportunity to help our profession answer this question. When exploring the intersection of practice as research, and research through practice, we are looking for the practical understanding of what’s happening in the messy world that is museum experience. For the forum, we look for articles, conversations, and research proposals that start with the fundamental question: WHY? Why is this research relevant? Who will benefit? Why can this learning emerge through practice? I have come to believe that every conversation we have as practitioners and researchers must articulate our intention to answer this most basic of questions. In setting an example for those who will follow in this conversation, I would like to start by asking the question, WHY? Why should we have a dialogue around research and practice in the museum field? Despite this journal’s 62-year history and the growth of scholarly writing about museums, our field still lacks a substantive body of research into the practice of museums. Few practitioners or even researchers speak of this paucity of information, much less articulate an agenda for addressing the missing depth and breadth of museum research that is happening as part of practice today. When I have pressed museum researchers to think beyond their current study to what is being learned in the operations of a museum, they often resist the desire to look beyond a well-constrained question. When I have spoken with museum professionals about the need to conduct more studies of the work they are doing, the rationale for inaction is often attributed to a dire lack of resources. Those at the top of our organizations usually report that there is no time for anything more than a single article or a small case study. All of these conversations might indicate to us at Curator that a practice built on anecdote and lore may be squandering vast resources by not codifying practice in ways that can be analyzed and improved. While case studies are crucial to museum research, they do not replace the value of large-scale generalizable research that builds knowledge across the field. In 2016, AAM conducted a study of the museum contribution to the USA’s economy, and revealed that the total annual economic contribution of museums: exceeded $50 billion USD as part of the Gross Domestic Product, represented 726,200 jobs, and could account for $12 billion USD in taxes (AAM, 2018). These amounts are about 0.2% of the total GDP but 8.5% of the entire cultural sector measured by the US Government (“Total Value Added by Industry Group 2016—U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Search Results,” 2016). What other industry contributes as much to the economy yet does little to monitor its practice for improvement and growth? Which leads us to consider, as a journal, the reason for investing in this portion of our journal as a place for dialogue about research practice connections. This forum aims to expand on how we have come to understand the practice of museum creation and operations, a place to explore successes or challenges, and reduce the likelihood of replicating past errors. To do so, this means we’re open to ethnographic methods or anecdotes, narratives or case studies. By building this record, we hope our journal can aggregate stories into a more robust record of how museum practice is shaping the future of museums. It is our hope as an editorial team that through this Research Practice Forum, we will together, tackle the difficult job of constructing a more nuanced understanding of contemporary museum practice issues. Through the contributions to this section of the journal, we hope to dispel the notion that generalizable research in the museum field is impossible. We have long accepted that each museum is singular and that every item in their collection is unique. We have linked, either directly or indirectly, this unique nature of museums to our inability to conduct generalizable research. It is not uncommon for a museum practitioner to state that what works at another museum would not work at their museum – the collection is too different; the objects are related only to a particular historical event and not broader issues. I accepted the role of Associate Editor to support the Research Practice Forum because I am willing to call for an end to these futile justifications. As a social science researcher, I have conducted small case study work – and focused on the individuality of our humanity. However, I have also conducted large-scale generalizable work – the type of research that applies beyond our differences and connects us as human beings. I brought my social science background, steeped in theory, to study museums in 2015. In a year-long study of five national museums, I examined the objects in collections, evaluated exhibition practice, and interviewed curatorial staff (Coleman, 2016). What I learned through that experience was that even though each museum told a unique story, from a specific perspective, using singular objects, each curator crafted curatorial voice using identical information gatekeeping mechanisms (Coleman, 2016). Gatekeeping mechanisms are used by individuals to control the flow of information in an environment (Barzilai-Nahon, 2008, 2011; Lewin, 1947; Metoyer-Duran, 1991). Each curator spoke of their work in similar if not identical terms – indicating that there are generalizable ways of understanding the museum profession, ways that cut across the unique nature of the institutions we serve (Coleman, 2016). I am radical enough to think that I am not alone in finding generalizable results for the museum field. I take on this Research Practice Forum in an effort to establish a new precedent: generalizable museum research is possible, and we, museum professionals and academics, should be conducting studies. Another reason for hosting a continuing conversation on research practice connections is to promote an ecosystem of collaboration. We have long thought that practice is the purview of professionals and research, the endeavors of academics. We must cease these imagined divisions of labor for our field to survive. At Curator, we love the notion of “jointly negotiated research” that my predecessor in this position, Joshua Gutwill, promoted (Allen and Gutwill, 2016; Gutwill, 2016). In research, I will lead by example, as I did in the study of curators and the crafting of curatorial voice (Coleman, 2016). The product of that research was a chart, The Gatekeeping Mechanisms of Curatorial Voice, adapted from theoretical work in Library and Information Science (Coleman, 2016). The curators dismantled this chart and reconstructed it in a collaborative process with me (Coleman, 2016). We, as an editorial team, understand that it is challenging to release ownership of our research to our participants – but we must ask for WHO are you doing this research? If we are able to answer the question of WHY we do research, we must in turn, answer, WHO is the research to benefit? Throughout the years, we have heard many excited researchers speak about their findings, about the funding they have received to investigate a phenomenon, and yet does their work influence practice? Does their research benefit the population of study? As museum researchers, we have struggled with our inability to recruit participants for studies. For example, in the research conducted in collaboration with my colleague, Abigail Phillips, into the empathetic practices of librarians, archivists, and museums professionals, we received an astounding number of survey responses: 619 participants. However, the majority of the respondents were librarians & archivists with 406 reporting that they had earned a Masters in Library Science degree (Coleman and Phillips, 2017). We noted the low participation of museum professionals in our study and we encountered great resistance to participation in museum research in our work – for a variety of reasons (Coleman and Phillips, 2017). We became fascinated by the reasons for this resistance, which ultimately boiled down to apprehensiveness – concerns about the researchers (us). We owe it to our population, the WHO, to provide accessible, intelligent research that will inform practice – generalizable work. In short, we at Curator, are the facilitator of conversation between museum professionals and researchers in an attempt to generate an ethos of collaboration and partnership. If we are to succeed in both research and practice, we must do it together within an atmosphere of collegiality. First and foremost, this forum is an open place for discovery. We are not so jaded to believe that we have discovered all of the famous museum thinkers. Instead, we assert that there are countless numbers of museum leaders (professionals, theorists, researchers, writers) still undiscovered. All too often, we hear the same voices within our field – and these voices are smart, and we should listen to them. It is also time for an expansion of the voices we hear. As a profession, we have carefully curated the speakers and thinkers of the field, but at Curator, we want to provide pathways for new ways of thinking, and we seek to attain new thinking through a process of discovery. In the Research Practice Forum, individuals will be able to promote their ideas, seek the counsel of others, and propose research and writing across disciplinary lines. Additionally, the Research Practice Forum is about connections. Research does not happen in a vacuum, and neither does practice. In this forum, we invite authors to conscientiously connect practice and research – to examine the influence of one upon the other and the mutual bonds between the two (Gutwill, 2016). The ties between research and practice may be positive – with exciting implications for both museum professionals and academics. Conversely, in exploring the role of research in practice, authors may “question the need, utility, and impact of research in the museum field” (Gutwill, 2016). We do not see the questioning of research impact or significance as a negative conversation but an essential one. We expect that there will be research conversations that are heated or questionable as to their appropriate application to the museum field – this is a necessary step for understanding and evaluating our work, and we should welcome such critical conversations. The more we recognize the bonds between practice and research, whether positive or negative, and their impacts, the more we reveal the work of museums in society. Lastly, the Research Practice Forum is a foundation upon which we can build the corpus of museum literature. The primary goal of Curator is to publish museum literature that is needed by the field. When we have these conversations, difficult or easy, we expand the writings of our field, leaving a legacy of literature to those who follow us in history. As the associate editor, my duties are to assist you in writing work that connects research and practice with an eye toward processes and publications that expand the role of museums in society today. I commit to facilitating discussions that are fruitful, fragile, and fevered. When Johnny Fraser asked me to take on the role of Associate Editor of the Research Practice Forum, I did not hesitate to agree. Why? I take on this role because I acknowledge the necessity of research practice. Now, we ask you, the museum professionals and researchers to join the research practice conversation: write an article, comment on the forum, do more studies, seek out the partnerships that will change the ways in which we examine museum work today and in the future. Let’s practice research and research practice! Laura-Edythe S. Coleman (lsc64@drexel.edu) is an American museum researcher and philosopher. Dr. Coleman is in the Fulbright Specialist Program for Library and Information Science and an Assistant Professor & Director of Arts Administration & Museum Leadership Program at Drexel University. Dr. Coleman was appointed as an Associate Editor for Curator: The Museum Journal in 2020 where she will oversee the Research Practice Forum. She is the author of the book, Understanding and Implementing Inclusion in Museums.