The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of Arts and Architecture

BUILDING STRONG BRIDGES BETWEEN THE MUSEUM AND ITS COMMUNITY:

AN ETHNOGRAPHIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CULTURE AND SYSTEMS OF
ONE COMMUNITY’S ART MUSEUM

A Dissertation in

Art Education

By

Yuha Jung

© 2012 Yuha Jung

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2012
 ii

The dissertation of Yuha Jung was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Mary Ann Stankiewicz

Professor of Art Education
Dissertation Adviser
Chair of Committee

Christine Marmé Thompson

Professor of Art Education

Charles Richard Garoian

Professor of Art Education

Madhu Suri Prakash

Professor of Education

Christine Marmé Thompson

Professor of Art Education
Graduate Coordinator of Art Education

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

 iii

ABSTRACT

This dissertation is a holistic, qualitative, ethnographic case study of a medium-size

art museum in the Midwestern United States based on interviews with all levels of staff and

board members, community leaders, visitors, and educators. I combine interviews with

participant observation in order to bring to light how the museum is connected to its

community. I also explore how the museum’s services, including exhibitions and programs,

and other practices influence the museum’s visitorship and perceptions among community

members. By using a theoretical framework of an organization as an open system and

cultural place, I understand the art museum as a complex organization where various

interactions and relationships are interwoven to create its unique institutional culture.

The analysis allows me to identify the museum’s challenges and offer suggestions

about how it can become more actively involved with its community and more relevant to

it. I conclude that while the museum is a cultural and open system that is flexible and has

coevolved with its community, it can overcome its challenges by becoming a learning

organization whose members are working, learning, and growing together to become a

more active and relevant organization in the community for years to come. My overarching

goal is to urge museum professionals and art educators to learn the value of being a

learning organization, adopt practices that promote such an organization, and continuously

learn to work together.

 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLE ......................................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ xi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ..............................................................1

Research Questions .................................................................................................................3
Introduction to Methodology ...................................................................................................5
My Role as an Active Member .............................................................................................8
Description of the Case Study Museum ................................................................................. 10
Rationale for Selecting the Avery as the Research Site .......................................................... 11
Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................................................. 13
Research Background Grounded in Personal Experience ....................................................... 14
Intellectual Significance to the Field ...................................................................................... 17
Target Audience and Goals of the Study ................................................................................ 20
Outline of the Dissertation ..................................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................. 23

Brief History of United States Art Museum Development ...................................................... 24
Museums as Relevant Social Organizations—Counter-Narrative........................................ 28
Museums as New Community Centers ............................................................................... 30
From Public to Private—Changes in Funding Sources in Museums .................................... 31
Discussion of Organization Management ............................................................................... 33
Museums as Hybrid Organizations ..................................................................................... 34
Organizational and Managerial Theories ............................................................................ 36
Scientific management approaches ................................................................................ 37
Human relations approaches .......................................................................................... 38
Contingency theories ..................................................................................................... 40
Leadership Approaches ...................................................................................................... 44
Trait theories ................................................................................................................. 44
Style theories ................................................................................................................. 45
 v

Contingency approaches ................................................................................................ 46

Leadership that leads ..................................................................................................... 47
Leadership in museums ................................................................................................. 48
Communication Systems .................................................................................................... 50
Mechanical communication approaches ......................................................................... 51
Organic communication approaches .............................................................................. 51
Systems approach ...................................................................................................... 52
Cultural approach ...................................................................................................... 53
Critical theories ......................................................................................................... 53
Community Development through Inclusive and Community-Based Practices....................... 54
Curatorial and Programming Approaches ........................................................................... 55
Diversity-Oriented Exhibitions, Programs, and Projects ..................................................... 58
Staff Composition, Professional Development, and Recruitment ........................................ 60
Diversifying Museum Visitors ........................................................................................... 63
Community-based Museums .............................................................................................. 69

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY—ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY ........................ 74

Ethnographic Case Study ....................................................................................................... 74
Ethnographic Inquiry ......................................................................................................... 75
Naturalistic inquiry ........................................................................................................ 77
Narrative writing approach ............................................................................................ 78
Case Study Inquiry ............................................................................................................. 80
Rationale for choosing the case study ............................................................................ 82
Discussion of generalizability. ....................................................................................... 83
Approach to Data Collection and Research Design ................................................................ 84
Approach to Data Collection and Participants .................................................................... 85
Research Design ................................................................................................................ 86
Getting access. ............................................................................................................... 87
Data collection. .............................................................................................................. 88
Interviews. ................................................................................................................. 88
Observations. ............................................................................................................. 91
Journaling. ................................................................................................................. 92
Other visual means of data collection. ........................................................................ 93
 vi

Walking as research method. ..................................................................................... 94

Data management. ......................................................................................................... 95
Data analysis and interpretation. .................................................................................... 97
Limitations of the Methods .................................................................................................. 101
Reflection ............................................................................................................................ 104

CHAPTER FOUR: THE RIVER CITY COMMUNITY .......................................................... 105

The River City Community.................................................................................................. 110
Characteristics of River City ............................................................................................ 113
Economy.......................................................................................................................... 114
Demographics .................................................................................................................. 116
Arts and Culture ............................................................................................................... 118
Working with Other Organizations ................................................................................... 121
Education ......................................................................................................................... 123
Perception of the Midwest ................................................................................................ 127
Discussion........................................................................................................................ 128

CHAPTER FIVE: THE AVERY ART MUSEUM .................................................................. 130

History and Overview of the Museum.................................................................................. 136
Mission, Vision, and Goals .................................................................................................. 141
Governing Authority and Department/Staff Structure .......................................................... 144
The Board ........................................................................................................................ 145
Committees ...................................................................................................................... 148
Development ............................................................................................................... 148
Education and outreach................................................................................................ 149
Acquisition and exhibition ........................................................................................... 150
Director search ............................................................................................................ 152
Leadership ....................................................................................................................... 152
Staff and Department Structure ........................................................................................ 157
Education department .................................................................................................. 157
Curatorial/registration department................................................................................ 158
Development/marketing department. ........................................................................... 159
 vii

Visitor services. ........................................................................................................... 160

Museum services. ........................................................................................................ 161
Facility management.................................................................................................... 161
Administrative assistant. .............................................................................................. 162
Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 162
Summary and Reflection ..................................................................................................... 168

CHAPTER SIX: PRIMARY MUSEUM SERVICES, COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS, AND

VISITORSHIP ........................................................................................................................ 172
Exhibitions and Programs .................................................................................................... 173
Exhibitions ....................................................................................................................... 174
Practical art ................................................................................................................. 175
Community-oriented exhibitions .................................................................................. 177
Exhibition labels .......................................................................................................... 179
Programs .......................................................................................................................... 181
Outreach programs. ..................................................................................................... 181
Family days. ................................................................................................................ 183
Docent tour. ................................................................................................................. 184
Art classes. .................................................................................................................. 185
Thursday evening at the Avery. ................................................................................... 186
Travel program ............................................................................................................ 186
Non-art related............................................................................................................. 187
Discussion........................................................................................................................ 188
Elitist Perception of the Avery in the Community ................................................................ 191
The New Museum Building ............................................................................................. 193
Fear Art—Lack of Cultural Capital .................................................................................. 197
Small Visual Art Supporting Community ......................................................................... 201
Hands-Off ........................................................................................................................ 203
Perception among Arts and Cultural Institutions ............................................................... 204
Discussion........................................................................................................................ 205
Summary and Reflection ..................................................................................................... 208
 viii

CHAPTER SEVEN: THE WORK CULTURE OF THE AVERY ART MUSEUM ................. 211
Internal Communication System .......................................................................................... 212
Board and Committee Communication ............................................................................. 216
Internal Staff Meetings ..................................................................................................... 219
Tensions and Dynamic Relationships among Staff Members ............................................... 223
Summary, Discussion, and Reflection .................................................................................. 226

CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS................. 233

Summary of Chapters .......................................................................................................... 233
Chapter One ..................................................................................................................... 233
Chapter Two .................................................................................................................... 236
Chapter Three .................................................................................................................. 237
Chapters Four and Five .................................................................................................... 239
Chapter Six ...................................................................................................................... 242
Chapter Seven .................................................................................................................. 244
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 245
The Avery as an Active, Relevant, and Effective Organization ......................................... 246
Education .................................................................................................................... 247
Economic contribution................................................................................................. 249
Social engagement and personal growth ...................................................................... 250
Challenges and Suggestions: Becoming an Active Part of the Community ....................... 251
Inefficient communication and non-collaborative work culture .................................... 252
Understanding the community fully ............................................................................. 254
More research and studies ........................................................................................ 254
Engaging the community. ........................................................................................ 255
Revising the physical spaces .................................................................................... 257
Expanding art. ......................................................................................................... 258
Sharing authority. .................................................................................................... 259
Financial difficulties .................................................................................................... 261
Discussion ................................................................................................................... 262
Research Questions and Answers......................................................................................... 266
Question One ................................................................................................................... 267
 ix

Question Two .................................................................................................................. 268

Question Three................................................................................................................. 269
What I Learned from My Research and Writing Process ...................................................... 270
Future Research Direction ................................................................................................... 272

APPENDIX A: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS’ PSEUDONYMS AND TITLES ......................... 274

APPENDIX B: INSTITUTIONAL PLAN FOR THE AVERY ART MUSEUM ..................... 275
APPENDIX C: THE AVERY ART MUSEUM BOARD OF TRUSTEES’ MEETING AGENDA
............................................................................................................................................... 278
APPENDIX D: MY INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AVERY ART MUSEUM .. 279

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 281

 x

LIST OF TABLE

Table 1. The Avery Art Museum’s board and staff meetings…………………………………..214

 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The river view from the Avery Art Museum. ............................................................ 107

Figure 2. The back façade of the Avery Art Museum. .............................................................. 108

Figures 3 & 4. The Tate Modern and the New Museum........................................................... 109

Figure 5. First level floor plan of the Avery Art Museum. ....................................................... 130

Figure 6. Third and fourth level floor plans of the Avery Art Museum. ................................... 132

Figure 7. Second level floor plan of the Avery Art Museum. ................................................... 133

Figure 8. Avery Art Museum organizational chart. .................................................................. 145

 xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing a dissertation is a team endeavor. At the beginning of this project, my professors

and peers were instrumental in helping me form a research topic and questions that were

personally meaningful and important to the field. My ideas and perspectives were thoroughly

informed and expanded by the work of countless authors and scholars that I studied. I could not

have completed my studies without the emotional and financial support of my parents in South

Korea, and my husband, Michael, here with me. I also could not have conducted this research

without the permission and support from the Avery Art Museum and participants. I thank Dr.

Mary Ann Stankiewicz for guiding me throughout my doctoral studies at Penn State. Her advice

was thoughtful, critical, and invaluable. I thank my doctoral committee members, Charles

Garoian, Tina Thompson, and Madhu Prakash for supporting me with critical viewpoints,

constructive criticism, and warm cheers. I also thank my former mentor, Dr. David Ebitz, for

encouraging me to explore an art museum holistically in my dissertation work, rather than

feeling confined to focus on the educational aspect exclusively. Lastly, I thank my editors, Erika

Reutzel-Bechtel and Tsultrim Datso, for helping me with the exhaustive revision process. The

teamwork, collaboration, and tremendous support I have enjoyed have greatly contributed to the

quality of my dissertation project. My sincere hope is that in the field of museum studies and art

education, this study will become a collaborative component in the work of other students,

scholars, and professionals who strive to make art museums and education more inclusive and

engaging.
 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

I grew up in South Korea where public school education is very structured and

controlled. As a student in the public school system in South Korea for 12 years, I did not enjoy

how little freedom I had as a student to choose what and how I wanted to study. Often I had to

conform to prescribed schedules for the high school and college entrance exams. Memorizing

and taking standardized tests were daunting and boring tasks for me. I dreamed of becoming an

art teacher in public school where I could give intellectual freedom to students rather than

forcing them to perfect a set curriculum. When I finally did my student teaching at a local high

school for two months during my senior year in college, I immediately knew that it was not for

me. Teaching at a public school was as frustrating as being a student there—I found myself

struggling with the standardized curriculum that is decided by authorities and confronted limited

freedom in applying my own educational philosophy in teaching. My experience as a student and

student teacher in the public school system in South Korea steered me towards informal learning,

especially in museums, where learning takes place rather casually on a personal level. I believed

learning could be more effective and enjoyable when learners have the freedom to influence their

own learning methods and experiences. Learning takes place everywhere. Either it is forced or

not, it is as natural as breathing and living (Falbel, 1993).

This view of education is closely related to systems theory or the cultural approach to

educational organizations, which are seen as learning institutions that are growing and learning

holistically. People who work in an organization are human beings, and their actions and

thinking processes are flexible and unpredictable (Senge, 2006). Students and teachers in schools

are also organic beings who are flexible and changing. Therefore, looking at organizations or
 2

learning institutions as fixed entities that can be squarely controlled may cause the unnecessary

stress and constraints that many students, teachers, and professionals often experience.

Because of my experience and theorization of learning, I initially approached museums

with this organic viewpoint. I saw museums as flexible, growing, and organic entities that are

closely connected with the surrounding environments, including the culture, economy, and

demographics of communities that they serve. According to Gregory Bateson (2000) and Fritjof

Capra (1996), all human beings, species, and natural ecosystems are interconnected and

interdependent, thus forming a web of life. Therefore, human-created societies and organizations

are also ecological, having characteristics of organisms and natural ecosystems (Bateson, 2000).

Based on the ecological perspective, I theorized museums as social ecosystems as if they were

living organisms. Through reading more literature in organization and management theories, I

found that there is a school of theories that views organizations, such as museums and schools, as

open systems and cultural entities where involved individuals collectively create a unique

institutional culture (Handy, 1993; Senge, 2006). These organizations are not fixed but

continuously changing, evolving, and learning. Peter Senge (2006) theorizes this type of

organization as a learning organization. According to this view, each organization is unique

because organizations are composed of groups of people who co-create their own organizational

culture in unpredictable ways. Therefore, in order to be most effective, management approaches

must incorporate an understanding of the interconnectedness of relationships and the culture of

their environments. I rely on the conceptual framework of my case study museum in this

dissertation as an open system and cultural place, investigating relationships among involved

members and environments.

 3

I strive to find various connections and disconnections between a museum and its

community through examining one community’s art museum within its cultural, economic, and

social contexts. In this way, I find ways for the museum to be a more active and relevant

organization in the community. As I explained in the previous paragraph discussing my

theoretical framework, museums are cultural, messy, growing, and complex organizations that

cannot be fully understood by one ethnographic study because they are constantly changing due

to the shifting interests and needs of museum staff members, visitors, and the community in

general. Museums are complex organizations that influence and are influenced by their

surrounding environments, including their particular focus, mission and vision, history, location,

size, community, and employee base, which can be summed up as the institutional culture. In

this study, therefore, I unpack the culture and systems that show how a museum functions in

complex relation to its community. The picture that I draw in this dissertation is not perfect or

just pretty but includes messy and sometimes negative multiple realities of the museum.

Research Questions

I specifically focus on connections and disconnections between 1) the museum and

surrounding community, 2) museum services (exhibitions and programs) and visitorship and

perceptions of the museum among community members, and 3) work culture and overall

practices of the museum. This approach yielded three overarching research questions for the

dissertation. I articulate each research question below.

1. How is an art museum connected to its community?

2. How do the museum’s primary services (exhibitions and programs) and practices

influence the museum’s visitorship and perceptions among community members?

 4

3. What is the work culture of the Avery Art Museum, and how does the work culture

influence the museum’s overall practice?

These are the research questions that prompted me to design and conduct this doctoral

study. My study tells a story of the Avery Art Museum, a medium-sized art museum in the

Midwestern United States. As they work to overcome challenges, the Avery staff members are

striving to make the museum more relevant to local community members and to be active in the

community. The museum is active and relevant in that it has popular educational programs for

K-12 school children and some of their previous and current exhibitions are considered

appealing to local community members. However, it also has challenges. Community members

perceive the museum as an elitist institution for a handful of well-educated and economically

comfortable people, and staff members describe the work culture of the Avery as non-active and

less collaborative. I discuss the museum’s challenges further in Chapters Six and Seven.

This study examines the whole museum in its geographical and demographic community

rather than studying either the museum separately from its community or one part of the museum

such as its educational or curatorial functions. I decided to closely and deeply examine an

established art museum working everyday in its community.

In this first chapter, I introduce methodology, briefly describe the case study museum and

its community, explain my rationale for choosing the Avery, and acknowledge my assumptions

and limitations of the study. I also discuss the research background based upon my personal

experiences and the study’s intellectual significance to the field of museum studies and art

education. Next, I explain the target audience and the goals of the study. I end the chapter by

outlining the remainder of the dissertation.

 5

Introduction to Methodology

Because of the complex functioning of a museum, ethnography is a suitable tool for

illuminating the subtle interaction of the culture of the museum and its community. In addition,

in the cultural approach to organization studies, ethnographic methods are considered one of the

best tools for understanding the culture and systems of an organization in relation to its

surroundings (Geertz, 1973). I use most of the data collection methods from the traditional

ethnographic approach used with anthropology, which has often been used to study cultures

outside of mainstream Western cultures (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; Merriam, 2002;

Tedlock, 2000; Wolcott, 2008). Fields of study such as education have adopted ethnography as a

methodology, using ethnographic techniques such as interviews and participant-observations to

understand the culture of formal and informal institutions within the larger context of the subject

being studied (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Gilmore & Glatthorn, 1982). Therefore, ethnography

enables one to study relations and other connected qualities in a comprehensive and complete

way. Chapter Three: Methodology—Ethnographic Case Study further explains this

methodology. This study will provide a new perspective on the operation of small- to medium-

sized museums since this type of ethnographic study about a museum in its larger surroundings

is rarely used.

Ethnographic inquiry is holistic because it is conducted within the context of surrounding

environments and includes the researcher as an important part of the research setting. It also

includes detailed descriptions and narrative stories of the multiple voices of participants. Since I

was not able to find relevant studies that used a holistic ethnographic approach in the field of

museum education or museum studies, I looked broadly at literature available in the field of

general education. I studied two ethnographic studies before I designed my own: Tangled up in
 6

School: Politics, Space, Bodies, and Signs in the Educational Process authored by Jan Nespor

(1997) and Ain’t No Makin’ It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood by

Jay MacLeod (2009). Both Nespor and MacLeod use a holistic research approach that allows

researchers to look at interrelated connections among subjects being investigated within the

surrounding contexts. It is their holistic approach and narrative writing style that inspired my

research. These two studies are good examples of narrative ethnographic study as they are

composed of a series of narrative stories, dialogues, and interactions with participants as well as

researchers’ feelings and reflections during the data collection process.

Nespor’s (1997) study supports the view that schools are social places located within a

unique context of personal, economic, and political settings (Nespor, 1997). To make his case,

Nespor (1997) explores not only children’s interactions and learning at school but also carefully

considers their surroundings, including the economic, cultural, and political relations that shape

their learning experiences. His approach to the subject matter is holistic because he studies

children’s educational experiences through many layers of context, surroundings, and

perspectives. Nespor’s approach to education can be applied to an art museum. An art museum

can be better understood when relationships among various elements of the museum are

investigated. In addition, the museum’s educational and social impact cannot be understood

without examining the community’s understanding of the museum.

MacLeod’s (2009) study is similar in methodology and general approach to Nespor’s in

that he investigates a social phenomenon through looking at the surrounding elements and

context using ethnography rather than just focusing on the subject under investigation. For

example, his study investigates how social reproduction (e.g., inequity reproduced from one

generation to another) is actualized in two distinctive brotherhood groups in a socio-

 7

economically depressed area of the United States. He investigates the boys’ personal,

educational, social, and economic lives in order to understand their culture holistically

(MacLeod, 2009). In other words, rather than just observing and interviewing two groups of boys

and looking at narrow aspects such as race and poverty level, he investigates their surroundings

and personal life, such as family situations, school life, and their relationships to other peers and

teachers. This study is conducted over a long period of time; the approach to the subject is multi-

faceted and ecological, including the surrounding networks of the two groups.

Like Nespor and MacLeod’s works, my study is based on the premise that we can best

understand social phenomena when we study them in relation to surrounding communities and

socio-economic elements, thus I explore the Avery’s relationship with its community. Likewise,

as Nespor (1997) points out, an institution made up of people cannot be understood in isolation.

Its interconnected relationships must be carefully considered. While these studies convincingly

demonstrate the value of taking surrounding relationships into consideration, no study to date has

applied these methods to museums, in particular, with the same level of rigor as in this study.

However, I found an ethnographic study in the form of a book chapter: “Museum in

Family Life: An Ethnographic Case Study” by Kristen M. Ellenbogen (2002). She examines the

lives of a frequent museum-visiting family in order to understand the social processes of family

learning in museums and to offer theoretical ground for studies of family life in museum

learning. The study focuses on one frequent museum-going family’s learning experiences and

leisure patterns over the course of six months using ethnographic methodology involving

interviews and observations, often utilized in educational research rather than the traditional

ethnographic approach used in the field of anthropology (Ellenbogen, 2002). In doing so,

Ellenbogen (2002) describes the role of museums within the larger context of the family culture.
 8

While her study uses the same methodology of the ethnographic case study as my research and

she adopts a holistic research approach as she includes the larger cultural context of the family,

Ellenbogen focuses on one family’s learning experiences in museums within the context of the

family’s social patterns. Therefore, the scope of her study is more narrowly focused than mine.

My Role as an Active Member

While I entered the research setting as an outsider, a person beyond the natural setting of

the museum, my work evolved in ways where I felt that more active participation in certain cases

would provide greater access to understanding the museum and community under investigation.

In order to observe every possible aspect of the museum and its operations, I attended almost all

staff, committee, and board meetings during the three-month period. I volunteered for several

museum events and programs as well as participated in special events, lectures, tours, and art

talks. I even helped install one of the shows during the summer of 2011. In taking on these

volunteer roles, my research role expanded to include that of “active-member-researcher” as

described in the article, “Observational Techniques,” by Patricia A. Adler and Peter Adler

(1994).

Adler and Adler (1994) introduce four levels of membership roles in qualitative research

settings: 1) the complete-member-researcher, 2) active-member-researcher, 3) peripheral-

member-researcher, and 4) complete-observer. Researchers in a complete membership role are

already members of the research setting. For example, if a staff member of a museum studies his

or her own museum setting and its practice, the person is taking on a complete membership

position as a researcher. Researchers who take an active membership role are not legitimate

members of the research setting but are involved with the setting’s central goals, activities, and

responsibilities. Researchers in a peripheral membership role value the insiders’ perspectives and
 9

are also closely involved with the research setting while not participating in actual activities or

taking on responsibilities. Lastly, researchers who take a complete observer role are

fundamentally removed from the research setting—often engaged with videotaping, audio

recording, or photographing.

I was not a staff member of the museum, so taking an active member position, by

volunteering and helping in the daily tasks, programs, and events of the museum, was the best

way that I could closely observe the interactions of others. In doing so, I was able to converse

casually with various staff members, which made them more comfortable participating in my

study. In addition, by the middle of data collection period, staff members became to feel that it

was almost natural for me to be in the museum building interacting with them and with visitors,

which allowed me to be an integrated element of the museum setting. None of these comfortable

interactions would have happened if I had taken researcher-in-peripheral or complete observer

positions. When I was about to finish the data collection period on site, several staff members

told me that it would feel unnatural to not see me at the museum after I was gone.

However, being a stranger in a completely new environment is not easy. I considered

myself as a double stranger: one who is from a different country and also new to the place where

I conducted my study. I sometimes felt uncomfortable and had a sense of not belonging to the

museum. For example, when I went to the annual gala event in June 2012, during the beginning

period of data collection, I found myself standing alone or trying to be part of conversations but

not being able to do that fully. This could be a natural feeling because I was a stranger after all,

and it takes time to build relationships. Especially when you do not share years of experience in

terms of work and being a member of the community together, it is difficult to find common

ground for speaking with one another. Sometimes, I had to tell myself that it is okay to bother
 10

people a little bit and sit in on various staff meetings. Nevertheless, I overcame my shyness and

uncomfortable feelings in order to collect rich data that would also benefit the museum.

Description of the Case Study Museum

To protect confidentiality, I am using pseudonyms for the name of the museum, its

location, and all participants (see Appendix A). In addition, citation information containing

elements that could identify participants or the case study museum or its location has been

withheld. For example, I do not refer to the state the museum is in but rather the Midwest is

used; River City is used instead of the metropolitan area name; and Watertown replaces the

actual city name.

The central piece of the study is the case study of the Avery Art Museum, located in

Watertown, the largest city in the River City area. River City is a medium-sized metropolitan

area in the Midwest comprising several cities and towns. River City has an estimated population

under 400,000. Farming and heavy manufacturing are the dominant industries in the area, and

20% of the population holds a bachelor’s degree or higher. Thus, River City is largely a blue-

collar community.

The Avery was originally established as a municipal gallery in 1925. The museum was

privatized in 2003 and in 2005 opened its new facilities in downtown Watertown. However, to

help the transition, the museum still receives 30% of its budget from the City of Watertown,

though this may end in the year 2024. Before privatization, the City of Watertown provided

funding and hired employees. Afterwards, the museum created new positions, such as

fundraising and marketing that were previously provided by the city. Currently, 70% of museum

funding is from admissions, memberships, store revenue, rental services, and fundraising. The
 11

Avery Foundation1, established by an affluent family with money earned from a banking

business, donated about 13 million dollars toward the 50 million-dollar construction project.

After the museum moved to the current location and was privatized, its targeted areas expanded

from serving only Watertown to include the greater River City area. Therefore, I do not limit the

Avery’s community to Watertown but include the entire River City area.

While the size of the building is quite large, approximately 120,000 square feet, the

museum employs only 16 full-time staff members and five part-time visitor services staff along

with a number of volunteers, docents, and interns (in the summer of 2011 when I did my on-site

research). The annual operating budget is about two million dollars, and the education and

curatorial budgets are approximately $60,000-70,000 and $100,000, respectively. Many of the

museum programs and exhibitions are funded by grants. The museum mostly collects American,

European, Haitian, Mexican, and Asian art and has about 4,000 items in the collection.

Approximately 60,000-70,000 people visit the museum each year. I will describe the River City

community and the Avery Art Museum, including the museum’s organization structure,

departments, and staff in more detail in Chapters Four and Five.

Rationale for Selecting the Avery as the Research Site

There are three reasons why I chose the Avery for my case study. First, with the Avery I

could tell a story of a small- to medium-sized art museum that has a homogeneous rather than

diverse population, which does not strongly support the visual arts and arts education. Second, I

selected the Avery because I had never visited the museum or its geographical region prior to

data collection. I thought I would study such a museum and community with fresher eyes than

studying a museum that I am familiar with or had worked in. Third, through my initial study of

1
The Avery Foundation is a private, charitable, non-operating foundation.
 12

the Avery, I found that its staff members are trying to reach out to diverse community members

and, therefore, they welcomed an outside researcher to the building.

The majority of published studies in the museum field highlight best practices of

successful museums in highly populated metropolitan areas, such as Houston, TX, or London,

UK (Marzio, 1998; Nightingale, 2011). My experience at professional and academic conferences

confirms that studies in the field focus on museums that are larger and more successful with

substantial financial and human resources. Much less is known about how small- to medium-

sized museums with more limited funding and human resources are relevant and active in their

communities. These museums, often located in more homogenous areas, face characteristic

challenges in connecting with their communities and providing meaningful experiences for them.

In addition, studies of small museums have not included the specific detail available from many

diverse staff and community members unless the museum is widely recognized as successful. I

chose the Avery to address this gap in academic museum studies.

Also since I had never visited the museum or its region, I could be more objective. I do

not use the word objective as if there is only one objective view of the Avery. Rather, I use this

word to present my approach to understanding the Avery through inclusion of as many diverse

views as possible from participants. Without the inputs and perspectives of others, my study

would be based on my personal assumptions and theories. Nevertheless, I had assumptions and

biases about the Avery and the Midwest before I started collecting data, which I will explain

below in the Assumptions and Limitations section in this chapter.

Another reason for my choice was the fact that during my early exploration, I was told

that Avery staff members wanted to develop the museum’s identity as a community-based

learning center. The director of the Museum Studies program at the Midwestern University
 13

affiliated with the Avery gave me a great deal of information about the museum and encouraged

me to come to River City to study it because she thought it would benefit the museum. I felt that

if they cared about making the museum an active part of the community, it would better inform

my research questions about how the museum is part of the community and what it can do to be

a more valuable, relevant, and effective organization there. The museum’s desire to be

community-oriented and to relate art to people’s lives can be seen on its website as part of the

mission statement, but it has been difficult for the Avery to strengthen its community outreach

because it lacks leadership as well as financial and human resources. This will be discussed in

depth in Chapters Four through Eight.

Assumptions and Limitations

As a native South Korean who had only lived in the United States for six years when I

did the on-site research in the summer of 2011, I may have been relatively free of biases about

the Midwest. However, I acknowledge that I started the research with some preconceived notions

about the Midwest from acquaintances and the mass media. I had the stereotypical impressions

that there were nothing but cornfields in the Midwest and that Midwestern people lack passion

and imagination.

I also assumed that museums in general are closely related to their surrounding

population as well as to their cultural, economic, and educational environments and that all

museums have unique qualities depending on their surroundings. Therefore, I theorized that

museums need practices that are more creative, democratic, and informal rather than the one-

size-fits-all approach to education and practices. Consequently, I had concluded that ideal

museums are community-oriented, diverse, and inclusive of the general public regardless of their

racial, cultural, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds. I also believed that museums
 14

should value the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes visitors bring to the culture of the museum,

rather than try to impose their values on them.

By reading a great deal of literature on systems theory and ecological perspectives, which

emphasize the connectedness of all natural species, human beings, and surrounding

environments, I developed the notion of a museum as a social ecosystem, which is briefly

introduced earlier in this chapter. Such a museum ecosystem can be understood within the

context of its environments, visitors, and other related elements, which allowed me to see the

Avery holistically. However, at the same time, this view has prevented me from seeing other

possibilities that cannot be explained by using the theoretical concept of a museum as a social

ecosystem because museums are human-created organizations rather than natural organisms that

work to survive and reproduce. While I was collecting data, I put this concept (museum as social

ecosystem) aside in order to gather descriptive and diverse data. When analyzing and interpreting

this data, however, I replaced the concept with a similar but more organizationally oriented view

of systems theory that sees organizations as open systems and cultural spaces, which will be

further discussed in Chapter Two.

By accepting my assumptions, I am aware of the limitations of the study. First, I am a

native South Korean woman whose cultural assumptions differ in many ways from Americans.

This study is also limited by the duration of data collection, number of participants, and

composition of the participants. I will discuss the details of methodology limitations in Chapter

Three on methodology.

Research Background Grounded in Personal Experience

As a graduate student in Syracuse University’s Museum Studies program, I had the

opportunity to visit many museums in the United States, from small, local museums to large
 15

metropolitan ones. After two years of study (2006-2008), I came to understand that museums are

not as democratic, communicative, and inclusive as I had believed. I discovered that most

museum audiences were predominantly White except in museums that focused on certain ethnic

arts, histories, or cultures (e.g., African American, Asian, and Jewish museums). I was sensitive

to this tendency because I am a member of underrepresented groups in the United States. This

tendency was less obvious in science museums, zoos, and botanical gardens, which I also

observed, than in art museums. In addition, by working in many different museums, including

the Everson Museum of Art, the Erie Canal Museum, the Syracuse University Art Galleries, and

the American Museum of Natural History, I observed that museum professionals were also

largely homogeneous in their ethnic, cultural, and educational level and social background. Since

I have not experienced every museum in the United Sates and cannot be free of biased, personal

assumptions, it would be unfair to claim that this tendency holds across all museums. However, a

study of relevant literature confirmed these troubling observations, and I concluded that museum

staff and its audience population were socioeconomically, culturally, and educationally

homogeneous. Since these first years in the United States, I have been motivated to learn more

about the origins of this tendency and how we, as museum professionals, scholars, and students,

can make museums more active, inviting, relevant, and inclusive of as many people as possible. I

speculated that museums need more diverse connections in their practices at various levels.

While diversity could be defined narrowly as race or ethnicity, in this study, the concept

of diversity includes socioeconomic differences, educational background, learning styles, sexual

orientation, racial and ethnic backgrounds, religion, and other differentiating aspects that

influence identity and culture. Diversity is a concept that helps people be aware of differences

and relationships that can be left unnoticed in our daily lives. According to the American
 16

Association of Museums (2002), also known as the AAM, diversity includes ideas of “national

origin, gender, race, culture, economic status, religion, sexual orientation, physical or cognitive

ability, age, and/or family structure” (para. 1). The AAM (2002) emphasizes three areas that

need more diversity in museum practices: 1) museum services—fostering diversity through

programs, services, and facilities that are inviting and relevant to surrounding communities; 2)

staff composition and management styles—practicing diversity through recruiting, retaining, and

valuing diverse, committed staff and leadership and using responsible and smart business

practices; and 3) inclusive museum practice as a whole—promoting diversity to ensure museums

address the needs and interests of the public.

AAM’s diversity initiative emphasizes the inclusiveness and relevance of museum

practices to their community members. Museum practices, staff composition, the culture of the

community, and other surrounding environments are all connected and interdependent. I started

to question whether not seeing these relationships holistically may have resulted in homogeneous

professional and museum visitor composition. For example, when museum staff members do not

know what community members would like to experience at the museum and do not reflect

visitor feedback in their practice, the museum is not likely to attract new audiences. If museum

staff members are not diverse in terms of race, culture, socio-economic background, and

education experience, they are more likely to focus on exhibitions and programs that they feel

important, interesting, and comfortable. In this case, some people who do not understand what

the museum currently offers may feel disconnected from the museum. This suspicion led me to

conduct this study, investigating relationships among the museum, community, and other related

elements.
 17

Intellectual Significance to the Field

In this section, I discuss the significance of the study to the field of museum studies and

art education. The main concern of the research is in the field of museum education and

management, primary elements of museum studies. However, broadly speaking, education in the

visual arts in museums is part of art education overall because art education is not limited to

kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) public school education but also includes informal art

education at arts, cultural, and other community-based institutions. Therefore, this study informs

the field of art education in general. Its significance is discussed in four ways: 1) the significance

of educational organizations as learning communities, 2) the importance of a holistic view of

museums and their communities, 3) the value of museums becoming more active and relevant

organizations in the community, and 4) the significance of diversity practices in art museums.

First, as described early in this chapter, my theoretical framework presents educational

organizations, such as schools, universities, and museums, as open systems and cultural places

where people work together to create institutional cultures of their organizations. An ideal

educational organization would function like a learning community that is continuously growing

and learning together in order to be a more effective and relevant organization to all involved

people (Senge, 2006). A learning organization is messy, complex, and not perfect, but it always

grows to be something better than the current state (Senge, 2006). This view of a learning

organization could act as a mind-set or theoretical perspective for museum professionals and

teachers to see their practices critically and work and learn together to improve their current

practices.

Second, the study is significant because it emphasizes the importance of interconnections

in museum practices: relationships between the museum and its community as well as
 18

connections among museum structure, the culture of work and employment, the local population,

and other environments. Many museum scholars argue that because museums are part of society,

they are responsible to be inclusive, diverse, and conscious of the needs and interests of the

surrounding communities (Falk, 2009; Hirzy, 1992; Janes, 2009; Sandell, 2007; Silverman,

2010). While this view has been valued in the field of museum scholarship, few studies have

examined the important relationships among museum elements using ethnography: museum

staff, visitors, community members, other cultural and educational institutions with similar

functions, and more in order to draw a holistic picture of a real world art museum. Thus, this

study fills that gap in the literature of museum studies. The study also emphasizes how the

organizational and managerial structure, work culture, communication system, and museum

services depend on overall museum qualities and visitor satisfaction. For example, by examining

the museum’s services, programs and exhibitions, and community perceptions of the museum,

the study reveals why the museum tends to attract a certain group of people in the community

while they do not attract others.

Third, the study examines effectiveness, challenges, and potential solutions for the art

museum to become a more active, relevant, and responsive organization in the community.

Because of funding and structural changes of museums in the 1970s and 1980s, museums had to

diversify their roles and identities while they competed with other educational, arts, cultural, and

entertainment institutions (AAM, 2011; Moore, 1994). Most scholars argue that museums need

to more carefully monitor the needs and interests of their audiences because museums no longer

rely on traditional sources of funding, such as government and federal funding. It is no longer the

time for museums to wait for visitors and patrons to come to the museum. On the contrary, it is
 19

the time to actively engage local audiences, potential donors, and patrons by inviting them to the

museum.

Lastly, the study shows ways museums can be more diverse regarding museum services,

staff composition, and roles and responsibilities. The importance of diversity in museum

practices at various levels has been emphasized, but achieving it remains one of the most

difficult challenges in the field of museums. According to the AAM (2002), museums in the

United States do not embrace enough diversity in their practices, leaving “a significant disparity

between the diversity of our communities and the people who visit, work in, and lead our cultural

institutions” (para. 1). According to the most recent United States Census (2011) available,

conducted in 2010 and reported in 2011, at least one-third of the American population is made

up of racial minorities. In addition, the minority population in 2010 has increased compared with

the 2000 United States Census. For instance, Hispanic or Latino and Asian populations increased

by 43% and 43.3%, respectively. It is expected that this proportion will continue to grow,

actually removing several groups from minority status. While racial, ethnic, and cultural

diversity is only a fraction of the whole concept of diversity discussed previously, it shows the

tendency towards a flexible society that is continuously becoming more diverse. In addition, it is

important to pay attention to different ways of learning and to marginalized types and genres of

arts, such as indigenous epistemology, minority arts, and minority cultures, which are often not

addressed in mainstream museum practice and education. Considering this reality, addressing

and paying close attention to diversity in the community in museum education and practices

deserves more serious attention than ever.

 20

Target Audience and Goals of the Study

The Avery’s staff will be my first audience. They asked me to share my written project

with them when it is complete. My descriptive study and suggestions could potentially be helpful

if staff members feel that my study is valuable and decide to incorporate discussions and

suggestions in their practice. Such innovations might shed light on museum practices that the

staff were not aware of or may have neglected. When museum professionals are fully engaged in

an organization for many years, working in the same department and doing similar tasks, they

may not evaluate their work critically or may not see how a museum practice relates to other

staff, departments, visitors, and the community. Reading a descriptive study of the museum’s

practices and its relationship to the community conducted by an outsider may enable staff to see

the entire museum functioning and its relationship to the community from a new or alternative

perspective. In addition, by including diverse views from the staff, visitors, and community

members in the study, museum staff members may explore different ways of accommodating the

needs and interests of diverse community members.

While the study is not suitable for universal or statistical generalization, it can benefit

museum directors, trustees, educators, curators, and other museum professionals in art museums.

Since my case is an art museum, it is more relevant to art museum professionals than

professionals in other kinds of museums. However, my target audience may not be limited to art

museum professionals because there are many shared characteristics and challenges among other

non-profit cultural and educational organizations such as educational mission, funding sources,

and staff composition and background. As I discussed earlier, the study’s theoretical framework

can be applied to public schools, which could benefit teachers and students. Schools could be

seen as open systems that influence and are influenced by involved people and surrounding
 21

communities and that continue to grow to be something better. School teachers could benefit

from my study by learning about these complex relationships and making them stronger so that

the school culture, larger educational system, teaching styles and content reflect the needs and

interests of students and the social, economic, and cultural characteristics of the community.

Beyond its contribution to scholarship, the study aims to encourage art museum

professionals to understand the connections between their museums and the communities they

serve. My study examines how the relationship between the unique museum culture and its

community influences overall museum practices, community perception, and visitor population,

background, and pattern. Another important purpose of this study is to increase the dynamic

connections to the community, its culture, and surroundings. Hopefully, museums will be able to

reevaluate their practices, finding new ways to tackle the challenges of reaching out to diverse

community members.

Outline of the Dissertation

The dissertation has eight chapters. In the first, I introduce my research questions and

briefly introduce the case study, including my reasons for choosing the Avery as my research

site. I also explain my assumptions and limitations, personal experience relevant to the study, the

intellectual significance of the dissertation in the fields of art education and museum studies, its

target audience, and the goals of the study. The second chapter includes a review of relevant

literature in order to detail my theoretical framework, to distill the research by museum scholars

and professionals on the topic, and to establish my position in the field. Chapter Three sets forth

the methodology, theoretical approaches to the methodology, the design of the research as well

as my experience in the field. I also include how I used relevant qualitative research literature on
 22

methodology to design my own research, collect data in the field, and to organize, analyze, and

interpret the data.

Chapters Four, Five, Six and Seven are aspects of an intertwined story but are divided

into four parts to simplify analysis and to explain to readers what I view to be the essential

components of the holistic museum and community under investigation. Chapters Four and Five

describe the River City community and the Avery Art Museum, respectively. Chapter Four

includes the community’s unique social, demographic, economic, and educational culture while

Chapter Five explains the organization of the museum and its staff. Next, Chapter Six examines

the museum’s primary services, exhibitions and programs for visitors, and how community

members in general perceive the Avery based on the museum’s physical spaces, services,

culture, characteristics of the community, and other related aspects. Chapter Seven investigates

the Avery’s work culture and how it affects the museum’s overall practices. Chapter Eight

summarizes each chapter, presents conclusions, explains how the dissertation answers the

research questions introduced in Chapter One, and, finally, discusses future research directions.
 23

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter begins with a brief history of art museum development in the United States

and an explanation of how traditionally conceived art museums are different from other kinds of

museums. It describes how the changing demands, interests, and needs of audiences have led

many museums to become more interactive, participatory, and inclusive community-based social

centers.

Next is a discussion of organization management. First, museums are different from and

similar to non-profit and for-profit organizations and can be conceptualized as hybrid

organizations that have mixed forms of funding, management styles, goals, and missions.

Second, literature from the fields of museum, non-profit, and for-profit management is reviewed

in an analysis of organizational structure and managerial theories, leadership theories and styles,

and communication systems. Because of the limited literature available in museum management,

I broadened my search to include non-profit and for-profit management, which are also relevant

to museum management because museums can be considered businesses in that they have to

meet financial goals and provide services.

The third section of this chapter discusses community development through diversity

practices in museums using a number of real world examples. I focus on four aspects of museum

diversity practices that help museums become active, relevant, and responsive organizations in

the community: 1) curatorial and programming approaches, 2) exhibitions and programs, 3) staff

composition, professional development, and recruitment, and 4) visitors. These four areas of

diversity practices are inseparable because they inform one another. Last, this section introduces

several examples of museums that have successfully incorporated diversity at various levels and

can be considered models of community-based learning centers.

 24

These three areas of literature review informed my theoretical framework for

understanding the Avery and its community as well as analyzing and interpreting collected data.

The discussion of art museum history in the United States leads to the discussion of how art

museums became more involved with their communities and strive to be more active and

relevant to the needs and interests of community members. This discussion sets the tone that I

lean more toward museums that strive to serve the needs and interests of the community and to

make strong relationships with many parts of their communities. The next section of literature

review discusses different viewpoints on organization management, and I distill an overarching

theoretical framework that views organizations as open, cultural systems that are changing and

growing. Therefore, no two organizations can have the same institutional culture and can be

managed in the same way. The third section investigates examples of real world museum

diversity practices that foster diverse connections among museum staff members, visitors, and

other community members. This literature review shaped how I see museums and informed what

I consider as best museum practices.

Brief History of United States Art Museum Development

In the past, kings and princes collected art to affirm their power and wealth. Thus,

collecting and appreciating art became a symbol of high social status. By the eighteenth century,

an elite art world, limited to those few who were privy to elite culture, had become established in

Europe (McClellan, 2003). “Admission to the art world required appropriate social standing but

also a mastery of critical terms and history” (McClellan, 2003, p. 3). These notions of high

culture and membership limited to those who had social, economic, and educational power,

served as the foundation for most early art museums in European countries. The opening of the

Louvre in Paris in 1793 and the South Kensington Museum (later the Victoria and Albert
 25

Museum) in London in 1857, along with a number of other museums in Europe, afforded the

public with wider access to museums. However, most museum objects and artifacts were from

royal and princely collections and were seen as symbols of national power, wealth, and

stewardship (McClellan, 2003). Even though the lowest classes of society were allowed to visit

the Louvre when it was opened to the public in the late 18th century, they were largely

considered ignorant and unable to understand the high culture displayed in the royal palace

(McClellan, 2003). Most museums established in the late 18 th and early 19th century remained

focused on royal collections, national treasures, and items confiscated from other countries. The

intent was to emphasize national power and wealth rather than to provide a service to the general

public.

Some early art museums in the United States were founded under the influence of both

the South Kensington Museum and the Industrial Revolution and thus reflected an interest in art

being connected to people’s daily lives. The attitudes and practices of later American museums,

however, tended again to primarily address the interests and needs of upper-middle class people.

For example, one early museum, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, was established in 1870

under the motto “Art, Industry, Education” (McClellan, 2003, p. 17). However, by the end of the

1800s, the museum’s rich, powerful patrons started to believe that the museum needed to provide

arts and aesthetics rather than utilitarian artisanship (McClellan, 2003). DiMaggio (1991) even

argues that the Museum of Fine Arts was founded intentionally to serve and educate upper-

middle class people and to preserve their high culture.

People who understand high culture tend to have more background in art and art history,

be better educated, and have more experience going to cultural institutions as a child (Bourdieu,

1984). In other words, they have cultural capital. Cultural capital is associated with social and
 26

cultural knowledge that grants social power and status (Bourdieu, 1984). Through guarding

cultural capital in museums like the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, elite people kept cultural

and artistic knowledge out of reach of most people who were not members of their exclusive

social club, which created a deep gap between high and popular art and culture. The museum

limited some community members from being exposed to opportunities to gain cultural capital.

The tendency to emphasize elite aesthetic instruction continued to affect the practices of

United States art museums and professional development in those museums. For example, the

first museum course at Harvard University, developed by Paul Sachs and offered from the 1920s

through the 1950s, indicated the following as essential qualifications for high-level museum

staff: “a solid (preferably Ivy League) education and genteel background” (McClellan, 2003, p.

22). Alfred Barr, the first director of the MOMA, who was influenced by Sachs, believed that

masterpieces did not require any explanation or interpretation but rather that they could speak for

themselves. This view may have been based on the assumption that all people could inherently

understand the value of fine arts or it could have implicitly excluded those who were not

considered part of the high culture. In line with these views, Barr developed what Brian

O’Doherty (1986) would later label the white-cube approach to displaying artwork in order to

provide only the “necessary conditions for proper (visual, non-political) consumption of serious

painting” (McClellan, 2003, p. 25).

O’Doherty (1986) discusses the concept of an art museum gallery as a white cube in his

essays that first appeared in Artforum in the 1970s and were later published in the book, Inside

the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space. O’Doherty (1986) argues that the white wall

and neutral interior provide an ideal space for a work of art to be seen because the white cube

does not interrupt the aesthetic qualities of the work or allow the penetration of any outside
 27

social or political context. However, the gallery space is inseparable from the artwork exhibited

in it; it is an esthetic object itself that becomes part of the artwork, transforming the context of

the gallery space into an aspect of the content of the artwork (O’Doherty, 1986).

Many art museums still cater to affluent members of the dominant culture, and the

historical role of museums to collect, preserve, and research objects is still apparent (Fleming

2002; Janes, 2009; McClellan 2003). This focus on objects and a handful of people reflects a

tendency towards elitism and concentration on academic research about the collections and art

histories of Western cultures (McClellan, 2003). These qualities have excluded underrepresented

groups of people from fully participating in museum exhibitions and activities and have

prevented their stories from being heard in mainstream museums (Ames, 2006; Fleming, 2002;

Marzio, 1991; McClellan, 2003; Tucker 1992).

Many visitors would prefer to have hands-on, participatory, interactive museum

exhibitions and programs such as those that have been successfully adopted by a number of

science, natural history, and children’s museums where visitors are invited to touch samples of

objects, watch theme-related movies, and enjoy casual interactions with friends and family

members (Farrell & Medvedeva, 2010). These museums tend to have more diverse audience

members than traditionally conceived art museums where visitors often feel that they should be

quiet and that the exhibitions and programs are didactic (Farrell & Medvedeva, 2010). While

these museums are different from art museums in terms of mission, collection, and purpose, I

suggest that art museums can adopt this participatory quality in programming such as lectures,

tours, workshops, and art-making classes.

 28

Museums as Relevant Social Organizations—Counter-Narrative

A significant counter-narrative to the standard story of the art museum as a white

cube and repository for elitist culture recognizes the view that museums should be seen as

more than depositories of important artifacts and artwork. There are indications that art

museums are increasingly considered to be active public educational institutions where

relationships and networks among people are located at the center of their mission and

where visitors’ voices are heard and reflected in their practices. Theodore Lewis Low

(1942) argues that museums are social instruments responsible for social harmony and that

they should not continue to be seen as Euro-centric, object-oriented institutions for

scholarship that is only relevant to a handful of people. Even before Low, John Cotton

Dana (1917), former director of Newark Museum in New Jersey, discussed the critical role

of museums as social and educational institutions. In his book, The New Museum, Dana

(1917) states that museums should “learn what aid the community needs: fit the museum to

those needs” (p. 38), caring more for the community than for the artifacts on display.

Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums published by the

AAM provides evidence of the shift in the role of museums towards acting as agents for

social inclusion and as educational centers (Hirzy, 1992). This report emphasizes principles

for achieving social inclusion, cultural diversity, and educational value along with

implementation suggestions intended to “enrich and empower citizens from all

backgrounds” (Hirzy 1992, p. 6). Marzio (1991), Sandell (1998), Weil (1999), and O’Neill

(2002) also argue that museums are obliged to fulfill the role of social inclusion, cultural

diversity, and community-based learning.

 29

More recently, Janes (2009) and Lois H. Silverman (2010) assert that all museums are

socially responsible institutions. In his publication, Museums in a Troubled World, Janes (2009)

strongly argues that museums are inevitably part of our troubled world and have great potential

to address and tackle social, economic, and environmental problems through effective and

mindful practices. Similarly, Silverman (2010) maintains that the social work of museums is

critical and should not be considered optional, especially since our society is presently so chaotic

in terms of natural and human environments, education, and economics. In order to achieve more

interactions and relevance among community members, Maxwell Anderson (2010), the chief

executive director of the Indianapolis Museum of Art, even suggests considering new sets of

mission statements. Traditionally, the mission of museums has been to collect, preserve, and

interpret, but Anderson (2010) argues for a new trio of responsibilities: to gather, by including

people, expertise, objects, and experiences; to steward, by managing and being protective of

artists’ intentions; and to converse, by interacting with scholars, professionals, and community

members. Furthermore, Weil (1999) observes that museums are transforming “from being about

something to being for somebody” (p. 129). Nina Simon, who wrote The Participatory Museum

(2010), took Weil’s phrase even further. She said, in her keynote presentation at the 2011 Mid-

Atlantic Association of Museums conference in Baltimore, that museums are transitioning “from

being about something, to being for somebody, to being with someone,” emphasizing museums’

role to foster human relationships (Simon, 2011). In her book, Simon (2010) emphasizes the

participatory, interactive, and engaging museum practices that enable community members to

create and share personal knowledge and become integrated into museum practices and

experiences.
 30

Museums as New Community Centers

Several art museums have recognized that more and more museum-goers are looking for

engaging, participatory museum experiences. This trend of museums moving toward the model

of a community-oriented learning place is apparent in recently published articles from the

Philadelphia Inquirer and the Wall Street Journal. In his Philadelphia Inquirer article, Edward

Sozanski (2010) reports that many art museums have added facilities and activities that are not

directly related to arts. For example, the James A. Michener Art Museum announced its plan to

add a new art-free wing for such activities as concerts, lectures, and receptions (Sozanski, 2010).

The Philadelphia Museum of Art holds Jazz Fridays while the Museum of Modern Art offers

yoga classes (Sozanski, 2010). These events reflect the museums’ efforts to attract new

audiences who are not regular museum-goers and might not be particularly interested in arts but

who nevertheless enjoy spending time with friends and family in interesting community-based

surroundings.

In her article “No More ‘Cathedrals of Culture,’” which appeared in the Wall Street

Journal, Judith H. Dobrzynski (2010) recognizes the same trend: museums are no longer

considered cultural cathedrals that collect, preserve, and exhibit the best art. Rather, the

expression “cathedrals of culture” now reflects a negative sense of elitism (Dobrzynski, 2010,

para. 4). Along the same lines, many young museum directors believe that future museum

visitors will not be satisfied with just looking at art but will want to actively participate in and

interact with it (Dobrzynski, 2010). Many embrace the new view that museums should be social

places where people feel welcome to get together, exchange ideas, and create knowledge

(Dobrzynski, 2010). Ann Philbin, the director of the Hammer Museum, part of the University of
 31

California in Los Angeles, said to the New York Times that museums are no longer just about art

but rather are “the new community centers” (Vogel, 2009, n.p.).

Efforts to reconceptualize art museums along these lines can also be found among

museum conferences where issues, such as diversity and social inclusion, are becoming common

themes. For example, in March, 2010, From the Margins to the Core?, a museum conference

focused on diversity and equity, was held in London and was organized by the Victoria and

Albert Museum and the University of Leicester’s School of Museum Studies. Another museum

conference, The International Conference on the Inclusive Museum, has been organized every

year since 2008 to encourage academic and practical research to improve museum practices in a

democratic, communicative, and inviting manner.

Art museums have evolved over time to meet the changing needs and interests of the

community. Art museums are increasingly becoming community-based learning sites, where

people are invited to enjoy not only artistic and aesthetic experiences but also to participate in

various social and learning activities that are not necessarily related to art history or aesthetic

education. Therefore, art museums in the 21st century have become multi-functioning

institutions; they continue to preserve, display, and interpret important human histories, cultures,

and arts but also strive to create new public knowledge through curation, programming, and

research.

From Public to Private—Changes in Funding Sources in Museums

Museums’ ability to prioritize diversity issues, participatory and responsive practices, and

community-based learning has been challenged by changes in the level of funding from the

public sphere. According to a 2011 report from the AAM, government support (federal, state,

local, or tribal) for museums’ annual operating budgets decreased from 39% in 1989 to 24% in
 32

2008 while museums have doubled their private funding in the last two decades or so. Many

museum professionals and scholars have various interpretations of the impact of reduced public

funding on cultural diversity and social inclusion in museum practices. According to Richard

Sandell (1998), the financial strain has resulted in museums placing greater emphasis on their

role as agents of social inclusion. In order to compete for increasingly scarce public dollars, they

have been forced to more clearly demonstrate their role and value to the wider society (Sandell,

1998). Weil (1999) agrees that the funding changes have led many museums to become less

collection-oriented and more educationally focused. Resulting from a cutback of governmental

funding to museums in the 1960s and 1970s, museums have relied on revenue from admission,

shop sales, and other auxiliary events (Weil, 1999). Therefore, they have tailored their services to

make them more attractive to the public. In other words, museums have shifted from a selling

mode to a marketing one, meaning that they are working to satisfy the public’s needs and

interests (Weil, 1999).

While Sandell and Weil see the reduction of government funding as an opportunity

for museums to cater to more diverse audiences, Peter C. Marzio (1991) suggests that a

more fine-tuned analysis would suggest an opposing result. He argues that the reduction of

federal funding for art museums has caused museums to become commercial and profit-

oriented in ways that discourage diverse participation. Exhibiting minority arts, for

example, may be seen as a risky practice because such exhibitions may not attract as many

paying customers (Marzio, 1991). Instead, museums are mounting exhibitions based on

predictions about what will be popular among those who are willing and able to pay

(Marzio, 1991). In addition, because of reduced public funding and the legacy of art
 33

museums as part of a privileged domain, museums have paid more attention to the needs

and interests of their private donors than to those of the general public (McClellan, 2003).

Although authors have differing views on how a lack of federal funding has influenced

diversity practices, social inclusion, and community-based learning in museums, what is clear is

that the trend towards museum privatization has forced museums to go into the marketplace and

emphasize management (Moore, 1994). In agreement with Sandell and Weil, Moore (1994)

states that “a more community-oriented and relevant role for museums will be a safeguard to

their survival, not a burden to carry and respond to” (Moore, 1994, p. 2). Because of these

changes in the field of museums, it is clear that museums as organizations have to be managed in

order to achieve goals and missions and have to be more active, relevant, and inviting places for

the community.

Discussion of Organization Management

In this section, I review literature on museum and organization management,

emphasizing organizational structure, leadership, and communication systems. While these three

important aspects of organization management are divided into different sections for the

convenience of review, analysis, and reader understanding, they are inseparable. Because of this,

there will be overlapping concepts in the three sections. For example, scientific, humanistic, and

contingency theories will be used to discuss organizational structure, leadership, and

communication.

Since there is not much literature available in the field of museum management

specifically (Moore, 1994), this review includes relevant literature from the fields of non-profit

and for-profit organization management. Because most museums are non-profit organizations,

useful insights can be found in the non-profit organization management literature. On the other
 34

hand, while financial gain is not the main goal of art museums, without profits, they cannot

provide adequate services or fulfill their missions. Therefore, for-profit management techniques

can also be useful in museum management. In the next section, I explain how the museum sector

is similar to and different from the non-profit and for-profit sectors. In doing so, I identify

museums as unique hybrid organizations that can benefit from thoughtful adoption of various

organizational and managerial theories and models.

Museums as Hybrid Organizations

Most arts and cultural organizations in the United States are non-profit organizations.

Some are private or public while others have a combined funding, governing, and management

structure. According to the Data Report from the 1989 National Museum Survey published by

the AAM (1992), about 40% of all United States museums (historical, art or otherwise) are

considered public, meaning they are governed by authorities located in the public sector, while

about 60% are privately owned and governed. In addition, among United States art museums in

particular, 68.6% are privately owned. According to J. Mark Schuster (1998), however, many

museums follow mixed forms of management and operational systems, which he calls

“hybridization” (p. 128). For example, a museum can have a private, non-profit organization as a

governing entity while drawing some funding from municipal, state, or national government. For

instance, the Mint Museum of Art in Charlotte, North Carolina, is governed by a non-profit

organization, which also owns the building and the museum’s collection. However, the city pays

all staff salaries except that of the director of development (Schuster, 1998). Likewise, the Avery

is a private, non-profit organization but a third of its budget comes from the City of Watertown.

W. Mark Sukel (1978) explains that arts and cultural organizations are in a “third” sector

that cannot comfortably be categorized as either public or private. Even if a museum is primarily
 35

a private organization, it is often financially supported by public gifts, bequests, donations, and

government grants (Sukel, 1978). Most museums are non-profit organizations, but they generate

revenue through admission sales, museum shops, cafeterias, and other rental services. Therefore,

they also carry characteristics of the for-profit sector. Like for-profit organizations, arts and

cultural organizations are “goal seeking, hierarchically structured, and require managing” (Sukel,

1978, p. 349). Museums offer exhibitions and programs, which are comparable to the products

and services provided by for-profit organizations. Leadership, effective decision-making,

budgeting, personnel management, and bookkeeping are important aspects of both for-profit and

third-sector organizations (Sukel, 1978). Therefore, it is difficult to categorize museums neatly

as private, public, non-profit, or for-profit.

Arts and cultural organizations are different from for-profit organizations in that they

have more abstruse goals and missions (Sukel, 1978). While business value is largely measurable

by profit numbers, the value of arts and cultural organizations cannot be quantitatively measured

in the same manner (Sukel, 1978). In fact, in the third sector, especially in museums, profitability

can be better interpreted qualitatively in terms of achievements such as effective education or

active participation in the community. Quantitative measurements are less relevant. Goal

specification and achievement assessment are more complicated in the third sector than in the

profit sector because arts and cultural organizations have multiple goals and because they tend to

change more frequently than in for-profit organizations (Sukel, 1978). In addition, many non-

profit organizations, including museums, rely more heavily on human relationships, knowledge,

and skills than those in the for-profit sector (Bowsher, 1999; Moore, 1994). Therefore, straight

up business management principles and philosophies might not be suitable for third-sector

organizations, such as museums. Below, I review literature related to for-profit management,

 36

museum management, leadership, and communication with these differences and similarities in

mind.

Organizational and Managerial Theories

Historically museum professionals have not been interested in management, and some

did not even think that museums needed to be managed (Moore, 1994). Because of the negative

connotations of the word manage such as coping and dealing, museum discourse has tended to

prefer the word administer as opposed to manage (Moore, 1994). According to Management

Study Guide (n.d.), the term “administration” tends to be used for non-business concerns, such as

schools, hospitals, and museums while “management” is used for the for-profit business sector.

Administration refers to functions like formulating broad objectives, plans, and policies whereas

management is a set of skills of getting things done on daily basis (Management Study Guide,

n.d.). In addition to variations in terminology, there has been wider, international distrust of the

application of business management theory in the museum context (Moore, 1994, p. 2). Due to

the hesitation to apply business principles to museums, intellectual discussion regarding issues of

museum management, organization, and leadership theories has been inadequate (Moore, 1994).

However, as I discussed above, changes in the financial composition of museum funding

from public to more private sources in the late 1900s in the United States, the United Kingdom,

and other parts of the world, have led museums to become more aware of the market and

management effectiveness (Moore, 1994). Although applying ready-made business management

models and theoretical perspectives to museum management would be inappropriate, Charles

Handy’s (1993) book, Understanding Organization, and Tom Peter and Robert Waterman’s

(1982) “Mckinsey 7-S Framework” explained in In Search of Excellence: Lessons from

America’s Best-Run Companies have provided invaluable perspectives for the improvement of
 37

museum management (Moore, 1994). In addition, Carol Bowsher (1999) discusses a

systematically planned teamwork approach in the museum sector in her book chapter, “Total

Quality Management in Museums: An Investigation into the Adaptive Relevance of TQM in the

Museums Sector.” I will discuss Handy, Peter and Waterman, and Bowsher’s work in more

detail in the section below, which focuses on human relations approaches.

Organizational and managerial theories can be divided into two distinctive schools: 1)

scientific, bureaucratic, or mechanical management, and 2) the human relations or organic

approaches (Marsden et al., 1994). Burns and Stalker (1961) use the terms mechanistic and

organic to identify these two distinctive types of organizational structures.

Scientific management approaches. The dominant management theories in the mid-

1900s in museum management were taken from the scientific approach and did not pay sufficient

attention to people and relationships among the elements of museum organizations (Moore,

1994). According to Janes (2009), museums have generally adopted a hierarchical business

model with a lone director in charge of major decision-making. This type of museum practice

often destroys the link afforded by genuine conversations; it also prevents feedback and diverse

perspectives from being reflected in museum practices (Janes, 2009). According to Low (1942),

the traditional museum structural style divides museum roles into several different departments

and locates curatorial and registration departments at the top of the museum hierarchy. Under

this sort of traditional system, objects tended to be valued more highly than the general public

(Low, 1942).

Frederick Winslow Taylor first theorized scientific management in the late 1800s and

early 1900s as described in his text, The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). Taylor’s

(1911) approach emphasizes the maximization of labor productivity and profits believing that
 38

this would lead to “the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum

prosperity for each employé [sic]” (p. 1). Taylor’s (1911) four scientific management principles

are: replace rule-of-thumb methods with a scientific method of determining the most efficient

ways to divide labor and perform specific tasks; scientifically select and train, teach, and develop

workers; monitor worker performance through instructions and supervision to make sure

everything is done in accordance with the developed scientific principles; and efficiently divide

work and responsibility between managers and workers so that the managers’ time can be spent

on scientific planning and training. While Taylor’s approach is still influential in the field of

managerial and organization theories, it is criticized for treating workers as machines and for

dehumanizing work places (Moore, 1994).

Max Weber’s (1964) bureaucratic management approach is also considered a scientific

management theory in that it emphasizes bureaucracy or a hierarchy of authority as a necessary

part of an organization. Taylor and Weber’s theories neglect the importance of human relations

in the success of organizations by viewing workers merely as parts of a larger organizational

machine.

Human relations approaches. Fortunately, increasing numbers of museum professionals

have recently started to embrace a softer management style, the human relations approach.

Museums rely heavily on the experience and knowledge of highly skilled museum professionals,

and how they interact and engage with all sections of the community can determine the success

of their practices (Moore, 1994). Therefore, a human relations approach that emphasizes

complex relationships among human beings within organizations and in relation to market

environments is more apt for museums than the scientific management approach, which is

broadly used in the manufacturing and engineering industries (Moore, 1994). Understanding
 39

Organizations by Handy (1993) praises the human relations approach, touting the view that

organizations are not machines but co-operative communities composed of entangled human

relationships and surrounding environments. Handy (1993) emphasizes many factors that affect

organizational effectiveness, including motivation to work, roles, identities, interactions of

related people, leadership, power and influence, group working, and the cultures of

organizations. By emphasizing human relations in the workplace, Handy (1993) argues that there

is not a universal managerial and organizational model or theory that suits every organization.

Rather, each organization is unique because organizations are composed of groups of people who

co-create their own organizational culture in unpredictable ways. Therefore, in order to be most

effective, management approaches must incorporate an understanding of the interconnectedness

of relationships and the culture of their environments.

Another theory that values a humanistic approach is “McKinsey’s 7-S framework”

developed by Peters and Waterman (1982). The framework is named after the consulting

company, McKinsey and Company, where Peters and Waterman worked in the early 1980s. This

management model identifies seven variables that affect the overall performance of an

organization: structure (skeleton of organizational chart), strategy (plans to achieve goals),

systems (routine processes and procedures), styles (working culture), staff (people), skills

(capability of the staff as a whole), and shared values (significant meanings or guiding concepts)

(Peters & Waterman, 1982). Strategy, structure, and system are considered the hard elements of

an organization and the rest are considered the soft (Peters & Waterman, 1982). According to the

model, these seven internal aspects of an organization are interdependent, meaning that changes

in one variable inevitably influence the others (Peters & Waterman, 1982). Using the framework,

Peters and Waterman (1982) examined 62 successful United States companies and found that the
 40

success of an organization does not come from the scientific management approach or

organizational structure but rather from an organizational approach that fosters more organic

skills, such as the art of doing, strong human resources management, creative thinking, and an

innovative approach to product development.

Total Quality Management (TQM), which was initially developed in the engineering

industry, is a holistic and long-term management approach (Bowsher, 1999). Because TQM

highly values the human aspects of an organization and posits that an organization is run by

people not by a system, it can be considered one of the organic organizational and managerial

theories. TQM emphasizes that every aspect of an organization’s culture and operation is

paramount to the overall quality of the organization, including the product and customer

satisfaction (Bowsher, 1999). The TQM approach relies on teamwork that emphasizes

empowerment through employee involvement, efficiency, and communication (Bowsher, 1999).

“It focuses on processes, believing that everyone has a critical part to play in the quality chain”

(Bowsher, 1999, p. 236). TQM also values the hard aspect of management such as systems,

tools, and teams, which are all based on soft aspects, such as commitment, communication, and

culture among people working in the organization (Bowsher, 1999). Because TQM is often

discussed in the commercial sector where organizations produce tangible products rather than

intangible services such as those offered by museums, this approach should be applied to

museums with careful attention to the differences between the commercial and non-commercial

sectors.

Contingency theories. As discussed above, organizational theories are mainly divided

into two approaches: mechanical and organic (Marsden et al., 1994). Below, I briefly discuss

four approaches that fall under the category of organic organizational theories—organizations as
 41

conflict-driven, technology-driven, open systems (systems theory), and the cultural theory

approach. The term “contingency theories” may be a better way of categorizing these theories,

which were mostly developed in the 1960s and 1970s. Contingency theorists believe that there is

not a single best way of managing, organizing, and leading organizations (Burns & Stalker,

1961; Handy, 1993; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Mintzberg, 1979; Woodward, 1980). Rather,

they hold that there are many contingent factors that influence organizations to choose different

types of management. Those factors include origins and history, ownership and control, size,

charter, technology, location, and dependence on other organizations (Pugh et al., 1969).

Philip Selznick (1949) sees organizations as conflict-driven because there are different

goals and intentions in each part of an organization, such as different departments, groups, and

individuals. In the 1960s, Joan Woodward (1980) and Burns and Stalker (1961) pointed out that

the technology a company uses can shape the type of organizational model that the company can

use. For example, heavily machine-operated companies (e.g., simple manufacturing) can

appropriately use a bureaucratic organizational structure while companies that use fast-changing

technologies need a more flexible organizational approach. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) took

this approach further by adding the environment (e.g., economic and market conditions). An

organization with a stable environment is better suited for a bureaucratic organizational model

whereas a company with a fast-changing environment needs a more organic, flexible managerial

model to actively respond to frequent changes in the market and economic situations (Lawrence

& Lorsch, 1967).

Senge (2006) argues that organizations are like very complex open systems in that

everything in the system affects everything else and everything is part of a larger environment.

Therefore, each organization has to be understood as a whole. Senge (2006, p. 3) also points out
 42

that most people tend to have this illusion that “the world is created of separate, unrelated

forces.” This view is closely related to the systems theory as developed and articulated by the

physicist and systems theorist, Fritjof Capra, and anthropologist and social scientist, Gregory

Bateson. In developing his ideas, Capra draws on the earlier general systems theory established

by the biologist, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who envisioned a “general science of wholeness”

rather than one which is isolated and fragmented and believed that living systems and things in

the world are interconnected through a “wide range of phenomena, involving individual

organisms and their parts, social systems, and ecosystems” (Capra, 1996, p. 46). Even though

systems theory originates from the field of biological science, it can be applied to other fields,

such as business, politics, and education because it views all organizations, objects, and living

organisms as existing in networks of relationships (Capra, 1996). In the same vein, according to

Bateson (2000), individuals, societies, and living organisms are understood as being situated in a

context, constantly interacting with other parts of the world, and this view can be applied to

human-created organizations, such as museums and schools (Bateson, 2000).

Senge (2006) sees this type of open organization as a learning organization as it evolves

in relation to surrounding environments and people. According to Senge (2006), learning

organizations are “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly

desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is

set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (p. 3). Senge (2006)

emphasizes five disciplines that can lead an organization to an innovative and sustainable

learning environment: 1) systematic thinking (seeing the whole rather than each part), 2)

personal mastery (an open and passionate attitude for life-long learning), 3) mental models

(critically scrutinize negative assumptions about human behaviors and fostering openness), 4)
 43

building shared vision (effective communication of collective vision), and 5) team learning

(members can learn and grow more rapidly).

Lastly, the cultural approach views organizations as unique places that depend on their

surroundings, history, goals, people, and different ways of doing things (Geertz, 1973; Handy,

1993; Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1983). The fields of sociology and anthropology,

which emphasize the unique culture of each organization, influence this view (Handy, 1993).

The premise of the cultural approach is that every organization has its own way of doing things,

although this does not mean that it is the best way or the only way (Handy, 1993; Pacanowsky &

O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1983).

Contingency theory also applies to museum management as there are so many different

types of museums in the world. There is not only one way of organizing and managing museums.

Museums are complex organizations that influence and are influenced by their surrounding

environments, including their particular focus, mission and vision, history, location, size,

community, and employee base. In addition, museums can adopt different forms of

organizational structure that can be used in different situations. Museums have changed over

time in order to meet the changing needs and interests of community members. In addition, the

museum sector is becoming increasingly competitive and has been changing constantly over the

last two decades or so (Bowsher, 1999; Janes, 1999; Moore; 1994). The demands for more

interactive and responsive museum programs and exhibitions are higher than ever. Additionally,

funding sources and economic situations for museums have changed drastically over the last two

or three decades (see the first section of this chapter). As Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) argue, an

organization with a fast-changing environment needs an organic and flexible organizational

structure to keep up with changes in the market. Therefore, museums can benefit by becoming
 44

more selective and flexible in applying available organizational and managerial theories and

models that suit their unique situations and environments.

My study of the Avery posits that the museum is a complex, open system that is a unique

cultural institution, influencing and being influenced by the various elements of the museum and

its community. While I adopt the humanistic organizational and managerial approach in

understanding the museum, I specifically focus on the systems and cultural theories of the

organic management model. Through using ethnography, I unpack the culture and systems of the

Avery in Chapters Four through Seven.

Leadership Approaches

Just as organizational and managerial theories have developed diverse, complicated

views over time, there are various styles and theories of leadership. According to Handy (1993),

leadership theorization can be divided into three schools: trait theories, style theories, and

contingency theories.

Trait theories. Trait theories maintain that the leader is more important than the situation

of the organization or the nature of decisions to be made (Handy, 1993). These theories suggest

that excellent leadership is correlated most closely with excellent qualities of the leader.

Organizational success depends on the careful selection of leaders with these traits (Handy,

1993). The traits include high intelligence, initiative, self-assurance, enthusiasm, and imagination

(Handy, 1993). Trait theories have been criticized for favoring elite leaders who have inherited

the required traits and for placing too much emphasis on the leader to the neglect of surrounding

people and environments. The great man theory believes that the leader is born not made

(Starratt, 1993), and charismatic leadership theory (Weber, 1947) sees the leader as someone

who has extraordinary insights and personal qualities that other people gravitate towards. These
 45

two theories fall under the school of trait theories because they focus heavily on the individual

leader and exceptional innate traits.

Style theories. Style theories are based on the belief that there are some leadership styles

that work more effectively than others (Handy, 1993). The two ends of the spectrum in this

school are the authoritarian and democratic styles (Handy, 1993). In the extreme authoritarian

leadership style, the power of decision-making and control stays with the leader while in

democratic and supportive leadership style, powers and responsibilities are shared and

distributed among a group of people who work together (Handy, 1993). For example, Kurt

Lewin et al.’s (1939) three leadership styles are: autocratic, participative, and delegative

leadership. Autocratic leaders have the control and power to make final decisions and to separate

themselves from followers while participative leaders make decisions based on consensus among

group members (Lewin et al., 1939). Delegative leaders offer little or no guidance in decision-

making and let group members make final decisions, which is considered the least efficient

leadership model among the three styles introduced by Lewin et al. (1939).

Douglas McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y is based on managers’ sincere trust in their

subordinates. Leadership style based on Theory Y is considered a democratic leadership style. In

this theory, managers believe their subordinates like to work, accept responsibilities, and

exercise self-control (McGregor, 1960). Therefore, in Theory Y, managers communicate openly

with their subordinates, foster horizontal relationships with them, and include them in the

decision-making process (McGregor, 1960). Theory Y influenced today’s servant leadership

theory (Frisch, 2012), which was developed by Robert K. Greenleaf (1977) and emphasizes the

importance of a supportive style of management that leads to a participatory working culture

with a higher degree of contentment and greater involvement among workers. While some style
 46

theories incorporate an understanding of the importance of other interrelated aspects of

leadership within and outside organizations, most style theories do not adequately account for the

role of variables such as situations, the nature of the decisions to be made, and involvement of

workers, in organizational success. Contingency theories explain these interrelationships more

comprehensively.

Contingency approaches. Contingency approaches are characterized by the assumption

that there is no single leadership style that suits all types of organizations because leadership

depends on the individual in charge, the kinds of decisions to be made, the working styles and

personalities of employees, and aspects of the surrounding environments (Handy, 1993). Even

the same leader can adopt different types of decision-making styles or choose different types of

managerial and organizational approaches for different tasks and decision-making processes

(Fiedler, 1967; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). The contingency approach to leadership implies that

leadership is something that can be developed, built, or coordinated rather than controlled, born,

or fixed (Moore, 1994).

Vroom and Yetton (1973) argue that there should not be sharp distinctions among

different types of leadership because delineating the styles in this fashion is likely to result in the

benefits of each leadership style being discarded without critical judgment. Rather, they argue

that everybody has a natural preference for making decisions based on situations, which is

somewhere between the two dichotomous leadership styles of autocratic and democratic (Vroom

& Yetton, 1973). “Good managers vary the way they make decisions based on the nature of the

decision to be made” (Frisch, 2012, p. 35). For example, a leader may use the autocratic

leadership style on a daily basis to make decisions that are considered trivial or require

immediate attention while the same leader may use the democratic style to discuss important but
 47

ambiguous issues, making final decisions after receiving input from all members of the

organization. If the issue calls for brainstorming, the delegative leadership style can be used.

According to contingency leadership theories, flexibility in leadership is required for

successful management. In museum management, no two situations are ever the same when the

personalities of leaders, the work culture of staff, the market, mission, and community are taken

into account (Fleming, 1999). Therefore, contingency theories provide a suitable framework for

museum leadership.

Leadership that leads. The discussion of leadership has taken an approach that involves

more than management (Handy, 1993). In other words, leadership is about leading people not

managing them. According to the study based on interviews with 90 leaders conducted by

Warren Bennis and Bert Nanus (1985), leaders are more concerned with the direction and vision

of the organizations rather than the nuts and bolts of daily management. Through a number of

interviews, Bennis and Nanus (1985) distilled four themes of necessary qualities that successful

leaders need: vision, communication skills, trust, and self-knowledge. Leaders should be able to

envision where an organization is heading, and this vision has to be communicated with staff

members. Mutual trust, consistency, and integrity will provide a team of people with the feeling

that the vision will come true. Lastly, leaders should know their strengths and weaknesses so

they can build on their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses by collaborating with

people who are complementary. A leader:

is someone who is able to develop and communicate a vision which gives meaning to the

work of others. It is a task too important to be left only to those at the top of

organizations. Leaders are needed at all levels and in all situations . . . . We are all leaders

at one time or another. (Handy, 1993, p. 117)

 48

Leadership in museums. Traditionally, museums and non-profit organizations have

adopted authoritarian and hierarchical styles of leadership (Janes, 2009; Setterberg & Schulman,

1985). Handy (1993) says that most people recognize that hierarchies are inevitable in all

organizations. Top-down management styles have advantages, such as a fast decision-making

process and a highly specialized workforce (Setterberg & Schulman, 1985). However, the trend

in museum leadership is to move from authoritarian leadership styles to open, participatory, and

consultative styles (Moore, 1994). Janes (1999) argues that the collective leadership model that

has a group of leaders rather than having a lone director at the top of the hierarchy can be a

useful model for museums and can extend the opportunity and responsibility for collective

leadership to all staff members, emphasizing an open and participatory leadership approach.

Collective management structure promotes mutual accountability, consensus decision-making,

and rotating roles (Setterberg & Schulman, 1985). Janes (1999), the former director of the

Glenbow Museum, Calgary, Canada, adopted this approach for leading the museum through

organizational changes due to reduced government funding in the early 1990s. For example, he

used a self-managed team approach and allowed staff members to choose team leaders who

rotated every two years in order to keep staff fresh and reduce the sense of hierarchy within each

team (Janes, 1999). The previously adopted top-heavy management approach of the Glenbow

was not flexible enough to endure rapid organizational changes in relation to society and other

factors. The museum needed something that was more flexible and creative as well as new ways

of thinking and acting that helped the museum to be more active, relevant, and responsive to the

community. Leaders cannot do everything by themselves, and they necessarily need help; “the

best place to start looking for it [help] is with your own staff” (Setterberg & Schulman, 1985, p.

38).
 49

Fleming (1999), the executive director of the National Museums Liverpool, also argues

that there has been a shift in museum leadership that favors democratic qualities, emphasizing

communication and teamwork. Fleming (1999) discusses several characteristics of good leaders:

vision, genuine passion to lead, honesty/trust, integrity, enthusiasm, and charisma. Among many

characteristics, he argues that good leaders should have a clear vision and communicate it well

with the rest of the staff members; this sentiment is shared by Bennis and Nanus (1985) and

Handy (1993). Fleming (1999) also argues that successful leaders know how to thrive on

teamwork. Museum staff members can better follow the vision and embody it in their practices if

they are influential to that vision from the outset through teamwork. People are more likely to

commit to plans and goals that they help create (Handy, 1993; Setterberg & Schulman, 1985).

Because museums are hybrid organizations that have qualities of non-profit and for-profit

sectors and they are also educational institutions that serve the general public, museum

leadership requires a balance between scholarship and management. Traditionally, museum

directors were noted for their scholarship rather than leadership and management skills (Fleming,

1999). There has been more demand for the leadership and management aspect of museum

directors as museums are coming to adopt more business and marketing strategies due to the

reduction of governmental, public funding sources (Fleming, 1999). At the same time museums

are unique social non-profit organizations that emphasize custodial and scholarly responsibilities.

Therefore, museum leaders should be able to bridge two different worlds: scholarship and the

management of people and finances (Fleming, 1999). In addition, Fleming (1999) emphasizes

the need for museum leaders who can involve more than elite traditional museum visitors such as

new audiences and the general public. As museums become more complex and public funding
 50

resources scarce, the traditional qualifications of museum directors being former curators or art

historians will diversify to include leadership and management skills.

Communication Systems

As I discussed in the sections on the Organizational and Managerial Theories and

Leadership Approaches, many scholars reference communication as an essential quality of

successful management and leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Bowsher, 1999; Farnell, 1984;

Fleming, 1999; Handy, 1993; Peters & Waterman, 1982). Communication is the cornerstone of

any type of organization because it enables all members of the organization to understand the

collective goals and vision of the organization and to discuss plans to achieve the collective

organizational purposes (Guetzkow, 1965; Peters & Waterman, 1982). According to Bohm

(1996), communication means “to make something common . . . to convey information or

knowledge from one person to another in as accurate a way as possible” (p. 2). In organizations,

this function of communication is often used to give directions explaining how to perform a

certain operation. However, this first meaning and function of communication cannot cover the

more important aspect of communication that generates new ideas (Bohm, 1996). In dialogue:

when one person says something, the other person does not in general respond with

exactly the same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings are only

similar and not identical. Thus, when the second person replies, the first person sees a

difference between what he meant to say and what the other person understood. On

considering this difference, he may then be able to see something new, which is relevant

both to his own views and to those of the other person. (Bohm, 1996, p. 2)

This process of dialogue is endless, and this is how people create something new together

(Bohm, 1996). Based on Bohm’s discussion, communication serves as a system to flow

 51

information, knowledge, and messages and as an endless network for creating new ideas. The

latter function can be used in decision-making processes, problem solving, and brainstorming in

organizations.

As communication is an essential part of organizational theories, communication theories

have coevolved in accordance with changes and trends in organizational and managerial theories.

The use and research direction of communication within organizations have shifted from a linear

transmission approach to one that values a more social, interactive, participatory, and symbolic

approach (Putnam & Boys, 2006), which follows the trend in organizational structure and

leadership. In this section, I discuss communication theories in scientific and human relations.

The humanistic approaches include systems thinking, cultural theory, and critical theory

approaches.

Mechanical communication approaches. In scientific management and authoritative

leadership theories, communication is somewhat uni-directional and linear as most decisions are

made at the top and delivered to subordinate workers. Taylor (1911) argues organizational

efficiency and maximum profit come from highly divided workforces specializing in one specific

task; workers are told what to do based on predetermined scientific plans by their managers. In

the same vein, Weber’s (1964) bureaucratic organizational approach suggests that

communication is a managerial tool to command and control workers. These scientific

approaches to organizational communication did not consider how interpersonal and informal

communication affects the overall performance of organizations.

Organic communication approaches. The mechanical communication approach posits

communication as a vertical act and theorizes workers as mechanical parts of an organization

who only communicate facts; on the other hand, the human relations approach recognizes that
 52

people are emotional, irrational, and have various qualities, which makes communication more

complicated than what scientific organizational theorists have assumed (Roethlisberger, 1968).

In human relations or organic management theories, communication is not a tool for

commanding or controlling but for coordinating plans, increasing morale, and expanding creative

human resources (Handy, 1993; Peter & Waterman, 1982; Senge, 2006). The human relations

communication approach also acknowledges that human rationality is bound by the information

that they have and does not function as a rational machine (Simon, 1997). In this regard,

effective communication is absolutely essential to organizations because the information that

each person has can be shared, maximized, and synergized by many people who are involved

with decision-making processes through active communication and dialogue (Simon, 1997).

Therefore, communication is an essential aspect of achieving organizational purposes. Human

resources approaches believe that the satisfaction of individual workers can positively influence

the collective organizational goals. Therefore, communication in these theories emphasizes the

creation of democratic and participatory working environments that foster horizontal

communication systems and networks among all involved members (McGregor, 1960).

Systems approach. Systems theory, which I introduced in the Organizational and

Managerial Theories section, also influences communication theories. In fact, in this theory,

communication and organizational systems are not two separate ends of an organizational

spectrum. “Communication became the act of transferring, processing, and storing subsystem or

environmental information, and organizations became information processing systems”

(Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1983). In this theory, communication is understood as a

complicated learning network that helps the organization flourish (Senge, 2006). Communication

is considered a flexible, informal, multi-directional, and on-going activity (Senge, 2006).

 53

Systems communication theory can be characterized as a dialogic style as discussed by Bohm

(1996). Dialogue allows a free flow of information among people in multiple directions (Senge,

2006). Through team-based dialogue, all members of an organization can find diverse, creative

ways to solve problems and make decisions, and they can avoid the very thought that caused any

problems from the outset.

Cultural approach. More recently, communication theories were influenced by the

cultural approach. The cultural approach assumes that an organization can be best understood

when communicational systems and that work culture among members are carefully studied

(Geertz, 1973; Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1983). In the cultural approach, ethnographic

methods are often used to understand and describe communication culture and systems in

relation to the organization’s work culture and surroundings (Geertz, 1973). Therefore,

communication is an ongoing activity that creates and influences the work culture of an

organization in this approach. According to Peters and Waterman (1982), an informal, intense,

and intimate communicational system is the key to creating an ideal work culture for

organizational sustainability and innovation.

Critical theories. Critical theories critique the scientific and traditional organizational

communication approach as mere transmission of information and posit that traditional

organizations are colonized and gendered spaces that privilege masculinity business model and

power relations (Deetz, 1982; Weedon, 1987). In critical theories, organizations are political

spaces where realities are conflicted and shaped by all involved members (Deetz, 2001). The

critical theory approach values individual input in organizational communication and argues that

a dialogue-oriented model should be used for communication rather than an information-oriented

communication model that is solely designed to transmit information (Deetz, 1982). Therefore,
 54

forums can be produced where “the conflicts can be reclaimed, openly discussed, and resolved

with fairness and justice,” fostering great participation and reaching more open consensus

(Deetz, 1982, p. 26).

As communication is considered important in any organization, communication plays an

important role in fulfilling organizational mission and vision in museums. Museum staff

members communicate among themselves but also communicate with their visitors and

surrounding community members either in person, printed words, or three-dimensional objects

(Farnell, 1984). Communicational effectiveness and quality among staff members and

departments shape an organization’s external communication system with community members

because the staff’s enthusiasm and creativity are expressed in their exhibitions and programs,

written materials, and other practices (Farnell, 1984). While internal and external museum

communication systems are inseparable, museums focus too much on external communication

with their visitors (Farnell, 1984). Farnell (1984) argues that museums will benefit from paying

more attention to internal communication systems among staff and departments, which will help

improve communication with the community as well. My study examines both the internal and

external communication systems of the Avery using the systems and cultural theory approaches,

which are discussed in Chapter Seven.

Community Development through Inclusive and Community-based Practices

In this section, I review literature on how museums build their communities through

diversity practices. In other words, this last section discusses how other museums have met the

needs and interest of community members and broadened their audiences to include diverse

groups from the surrounding communities. As I outlined in the beginning of this chapter, I focus

on four aspects of museum diversity practices. First, I discuss curatorial and programming
 55

approaches that are designed to foster diversity in museum practices. Second, I introduce

diversity-oriented exhibitions and programs that can help develop diverse community

connections. Third, I discuss how staff composition, development, and recruitment influence

museums’ diverse practices. Fourth, I share various approaches to diversify museums’ visitor

population. Lastly, I introduce examples of community-oriented museums that successfully

engage their diverse community members in the museum activities and experiences.

Curatorial and Programming Approaches

Traditionally, museums have focused on collections and exhibitions that are from

dominant Western cultures, which excluded underrepresented cultures, arts, and histories.

Furthermore, their practices are object-oriented rather than human-oriented. Influenced by more

humanistic and democratic museum organizational, managerial, and leadership approaches, there

has been a shift towards programming and curating that is more collaborative and participatory,

often based on collaboration through interdepartmental teams.

Michael M. Ames (2006) argues that traditionally museums in the United States adopted

a curatorial process that focused on a Westernized paradigm that did not include cultures and arts

from other countries and cultures. Ames (2006) identifies two fundamental principles of Western

museums—1) collections are vital and should be the focus of museum work and 2) preserving

collections is morally good for the community. The traditional principles place a higher value on

collections than on community and have led museums to design processes that transfer

knowledge based on objects rather than create opportunities for visitors to construct knowledge

based on their personal interests (Ames, 2006). Therefore, museums have left out marginalized,

disadvantaged, and minority groups from their programs and exhibitions (Ames, 2006). Ames

(2006) argues that imposing Westernized museum principles on local communities without
 56

sufficient consultation may neglect the voices of local people and culture. In order to avoid the

dominance of Westernized museum principles, the Alaska Native Heritage Center invites its

native community to be involved by including native cultural experts, artists, and crafts people at

every stage of planning, designing, and implementing exhibitions (Ames, 2006).

While Ames’ main goal in curating is to incorporate the voices and diverse opinions of

the local community, Christina Kreps (2003) argues that the curatorial process is a cultural

process that involves object-, people-, and social-oriented perspectives. Since museum

collections are intentionally chosen, preserved, researched, and exhibited, they do not have

monolithic significance as suggested by their presentation in many Western museums (Kreps,

2003). Instead, the meaning of museum objects is closely related to the people who have used,

created, and viewed them in a specific culture and society. Kreps argues that museums and

museological work are part of larger sociocultural systems and, therefore, cannot be carried out

without being influenced by the surrounding people, cultures, societies, and traditions (Kreps,

2003). She criticizes the object-based curatorial approach as decontextualized from culture,

history, society, community, and people (Kreps, 2003). By introducing the “new museology”

movement, Kreps (2003, p. 314) hopes to lead a major reorientation in museum curatorship to

one that emphasizes democratization of museum education and practices. The new museological

perspective sees curatorship as a social activity from a holistic point of view and visitors as

participants and consultants of its practice.

Roger Hargreaves (1997) takes a research-oriented policy approach in developing

exhibitions and programs to attract more diverse audiences into his museum, the National

Portrait Gallery in London. His view is that research-informed written policy is essential to

successful diversity outcomes. Written policy, he argues, leads to planning, planning leads to
 57

programming, and programming leads to implementation (Hargreaves, 1997). In order to carry

out his vision, Hargreaves and his team in London conducted careful research about the local

community and examined existing research on audience diversification in other countries. Their

findings led them to define their target audiences as people with disabilities, young people, and

black and other ethnic minority people. They then developed a written policy stating that

acquisitions and exhibitions should address the needs and interests of these specified groups.

Appropriate programs were developed and implemented and evaluation procedures were put in

place (Hargreaves, 1997). The gallery even provided successful special activities for groups of

visitors with disabilities and tailored workshops and programs exclusively to them, such as

sculpture workshops for blind and partially sighted people (Hargreaves, 1997). This policy-based

approach enables museums to implement diversity on a museum-wide level, avoiding programs

and exhibitions designed to foster diversity as a one-time activity.

Like Hargreaves, Marzio (1991) strives to find a more permanent curatorial approach that

includes minority art as part of the norm. He argues that regular exposure to minority art and

culture will challenge and alter biases ingrained in the minds of mainstream museum-goers and

professionals. This view is shared by Marcia Tucker (1992, p. 9) who criticizes museum

diversity programs that take a kind of “art-apartheid system, where programs are segregated into

appropriate time slots” and treated as special. To illustrate his point, Marzio (1991) highlights the

exhibition, Hispanic Art in the United States: Thirty Contemporary Painters and Sculptors,

which was displayed along with other Western art exhibitions by the Museum of Fine Arts,

Houston, rather than treated as special. Marzio (1991), who served as the director of the museum

at the time, argues that although the exhibition was challenging to develop because collecting

information about Hispanic art at the time was expensive and time-consuming, it was important
 58

to do so as a way of incorporating minority art into a general, mainstream art museum.

According to Marzio (1991), an efficient communication system, consultation, and collaboration

with the Hispanic community in the city of Houston were major factors in the development of

the successful exhibition. He mentions that even though the exhibition was small, it had a great

impact on bringing the museum and the Hispanic community closer together (Marzio, 1991).

Diversity-Oriented Exhibitions, Programs, and Projects

Exhibitions and programs are the most visible and primary museum services known to

visitors and community members. While most museums have permanent collections that are not

easily changeable, many museums have taken different approaches to these major museum

services through collaborative projects, experimentation, and creativity.

There have been many collaborative projects among educational and cultural

institutions in real world museum practices. For example, beginning in 1998, many

Chicago museums created a citywide endeavor program, Cultural Connections, to foster

cultural understanding, the value of cultural differences, and community relationships by

offering cross-cultural presentations and programs to diverse members of the Chicago

community (Cabrera, 2006). Some museums have included community members as their

full partners in their exhibition planning and creating content for exhibitions and programs.

For instance, the Migration Museum in Adelaide, Australia, provides a community access

gallery called The Forum to balance the voice of the museum by contributions from

community members themselves (Szekeres, 2002). In this gallery, community groups

present their own displays, stories, and experiences (Szekeres, 2002).

Another example of full participation of community members as partners in the planning

exhibitions and programming is the exhibition, Nitsitapiisinni: Our Way of Life, co-created by
 59

the Glenbow Museum (in Calgary, Alberta, Canada) and First Nations People, whose collective

culture and history were the main subject of the exhibition (Conaty & Carter, 2005). This

exhibition was about the Blackfoot-speaking people, groups of First Nations People who share a

common language and cultural practices; their perspectives, stories, and feedback were included

from the beginning stage of the exhibition and program planning process (Conaty & Carter,

2005). Their primary means for communicating with each other was through face-to-face

meetings and all staff members at various levels and positions as well as diverse community

members were involved in the entire process. This collaboration resulted in satisfying exhibits

and programs that were meaningful to First Nations People and extremely relevant to the

museum’s mission to preserve culture and construct knowledge.

Helena Friman (2006) questions traditional museum practices and expands them through

experimentation and creativity. Friman (2006), who has worked in the Stockholm City Museum

in Sweden for many years, believes that the museum’s role is to act as a mirror to reflect

community and local culture and as a mediator to encourage participation and engagement. She

believes that the museum must be part of the city and spark discussion and excitement about

changes in the city environment (Friman, 2006). Through her professional experience working in

museums for years, she has come to believe that traditional museum practices like guided tours

for school classes are not sufficient but rather that a museum should interact with the public in

more creative ways, expanding the scope of the museum from a building to an entire city without

walls (Friman, 2006).

In order to realize her vision, Friman launched a project, Stockholm Education, which

specifically aimed at attracting the city street workers, such as police officers, bus drivers, street

cleaners, and traffic wardens, who were not frequent visitors to the Stockholm City Museum.
 60

She assumed that traditional museum practices failed to engage them and decided to reach out to

them by novel means. She recruited the targeted audiences to participate in a study of the history

and development of the city through exhibitions, paintings, and maps as well as field trips to

historical places and exploration of the city. In the process, the city itself was used as a great

educational resource tool to stimulate intellectual curiosity and build interactive partnership and

a sense of belongingness among city workers (Friman, 2006). According to Friman (2006), the

project not only enhanced visitors’ participation and engagement but also increased their

confidence and engendered a new attitude about their role in the city. Stockholm Education as

well as other exhibitions and programs introduced in this section rely on collaboration with other

museums and other parts of the community, embracing the notion that museums need not be

limited to their own buildings but can expand through partnerships and collaboration.

Staff Composition, Professional Development, and Recruitment

Many scholars have noted the tendency of museum staff to be homogeneous culturally,

economically, and educationally. Trustees and senior level museum professionals are

predominantly white, upper-middle class, and well educated (McClellan, 2003). According to

Fleming (2002), traditionally curators and directors have maintained the privileged position of

making important curatorial and programming decisions and because they often have

homogeneous backgrounds, they failed to reject exclusionary practices. In addition, they often

see their purpose as the “pursuit of academic excellence” and this “specialist” perspective makes

them actually less able to communicate with lay audiences (Fleming, 2002, p. 214). Curators are

hired and trained to care for the collections and academic research, while care for the public is

left to educators and volunteers who are often low in the museum hierarchy (McClellan, 2003).
 61

As a result, art museum audiences, programs and exhibitions, educational policies, and

staff and board composition do not fairly represent the extremely diverse society of the United

States (Tucker, 1992). For example, male European-Americans occupy most senior-level

museum positions (Tucker, 1992). Even though the number of women directors has increased, it

remains far below the numbers of males in high-level positions (Tucker, 1992). Tucker (1992)

says that the only museum position consistently filled by people of color is the guard.

Martha Lufkin (2009) shares the concern about homogeneity among museum staff in her

article “America is Changing—But Are its Art Museums?” She points out that the proportion of

white senior officers in major United States art museums is higher than in other corporations,

universities, and government offices. She goes on to explain that it is relatively more challenging

to prioritize diversity in museum practices since the majority of those who support museums

financially has not changed (Lufkin, 2009). However, considering the fact that United States

demographics are changing rapidly and minority groups will make up the majority in a few

decades, United States art museums must diversify their practices and staff in order to survive

(Lufkin, 2009).

In the article Lufkin (2009) interviewed many art museum directors, including Johnnetta

Cole, the director of the National Museum of African Art, and Arnold Lehman, the director of

the Brooklyn Museum, who have identified this issue and tried to implement museum

diversification in their practices and staff organization. Based on the interviews, Lufkin (2009)

concludes that museums should change in order to meet the needs of a rapidly changing, diverse

society, and that the sustainability of United States museums will, in fact, depend on it.

Although Weil (1999) acknowledges that problems with museum staff composition

remain, he argues that the way museum staff are recruited and trained has improved. Weil’s
 62

belief is that the ability of museum staff to effect social change is just as important as their ethnic

and cultural backgrounds. According to Weil (1999), museums are increasingly seeking out staff

members who can work effectively with community members to meet their needs and interests.

Many museums offer staff training to develop the practical skills required to establish

relationships and collaborate with other organizations and professionals, utilize a variety of

means and resources, and use proper evaluation studies and audience research to verify outcomes

of museum practices (Weil, 1999). Similarly, Fleming (2002) suggests that museums should

emphasize collaborative teamwork and generate new audiences through creating new, creative

exhibitions that focus on the interests of local communities.

Weil’s recruitment and training approach is well realized in the staff training programs of

the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. The Museum utilized effective staff training programs

during its five-year-long, museum-wide project “A Place for All People.” Since the project

required involvement from almost all museum staff members—including those in accounting,

curatorial, education, exhibition design, maintenance, public relations, preparations, publications

and graphics, registrar’s office, director’s office, security, volunteers, and more—training

sessions to locate everybody on the same page were a necessity (Schneider, 1998). Having

identified a lack of interaction among staff members, the personnel director, Donna Fleming, had

designed a series of workshops to improve productivity of work, awareness of visitor services

and diversity, and collaboration and communication among staff members (Schneider, 1998).

These frequent training sessions and interdepartmental meetings led staff members to realize the

critical role of collaboration in project success and to incorporate many different perspectives

(Schneider, 1998).
 63

The recent trend of museums becoming more community-oriented, diverse, inclusive,

and relevant challenges the notion that the role of curators is to distribute expert knowledge. For

example, the director of the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, Olga Viso, invites community

members to curate exhibitions in collaboration with curators (Dobrzynski, 2010). Recognizing

that some curators are not comfortable with the concept, Viso asserts that in today’s climate, they

will need to learn how to share their knowledge and research differently using diverse

approaches (Dobrzynski, 2010).

Diversifying Museum Visitors

Over the past few decades, many art museums and professionals have tried to build new

audiences and to reach out to underrepresented groups of people. However, the majority of the

visitors remain homogeneous. A number of researchers have documented that most museum-

goers share the demographic profile of being well-educated and wealthy (Falk, 1998; Farrell and

Medvedeva, 2010; Janes, 2009). According to John Falk (1998), most museum-goers are “better

educated, more affluent, and hold better paying jobs than the average American” (p. 38). In

addition, 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts by the National Endowment for the Arts

(2009) shows that audiences for arts institutions remain older and more White than the overall

population. David Fleming (2002) even argues that museums have excluded socio-economically

less fortunate groups of people “not by accident but by design” (p. 213). In other words,

museums have restricted themselves to meeting the needs and interests of educated, middle-

class, economically powerful people. The fact that museums have been run by an elitist minority

has also affected what they have collected, how they have been managed, and for whom they

have tailored their programs (Fleming, 2002). It is suspected that the relationships between the

museum and its community are not carefully discussed in traditional museums, which made them
 64

relevant to only a handful of people from the community. The traditional art museum has

narrowly focused on rich patrons and elitist visitors who already have the rich cultural capital

necessary for understanding high culture or art.

Robert Coles’ (1992) story of a group of students visiting the Museum of Fine Arts in

Boston in 1981 illustrates how some minority people feel about art museums. There he observed

that some children were not comfortable being in the museum even though the museum staff had

told them that the museum belonged to them (Coles, 1992). In a subsequent conversation, some

students revealed to him that they felt that the museum did not really welcome them. Rather, they

felt that because they were black, the guards watched them carefully, expecting them to cause

problems (Coles, 1992). An African American boy told Coles that if he goes to the museum,

people will worry that he will try to steal their pictures (Coles, 1992). The boy said to Coles that

“I am sure of it! It’s their museum, not ours” (Coles, 1992, p. 8). The boy added later that “rich

white folks” are the “bosses” of the museum (Coles, 1992, p.11). Coles (1992) believes that

those on the top of the hierarchy hold certain assumptions and biases that are felt by the people

who work there all the way down the line to the visitors. Coles’ story provides honest reactions

from school children showing how they felt about the museum, why they did not want to return,

and how invisible socio-economic division influences the way children think about themselves

and their relationship to the museum world.

Betty Farrell and Maria Medvedeva (2010) conducted a study on changing future

museum directions and suitable practices due to changes in US demographic composition and

backgrounds. According to Demographic Transformation and the Future of Museums published

by the AAM, 34% of the total US population is considered part of a minority and 46% will be

members of minority groups in 25 years (Farrell & Medvedeva, 2010). By 2050, non-Hispanic
 65

Whites will be members of a minority for the first time since the country was established (Farrell

& Medvedeva, 2010). Farrell and Medvedeva (2010) go on to say that what are considered

minority groups now, including African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific

Islanders, and Native Americans, will become the “majority minority” (p. 9), making up more

than 50% of the US population. They suggest that “the definition of ‘mainstream’ will have to be

revised” (Farrell & Medvedeva, 2010, p. 9).

Despite the fact that United States society is becoming more diverse than ever, only 9%

of the minority population is currently visiting museums (Farrell & Medvedeva, 2010). Non-

Hispanic Whites are still the predominant visitors of United State art museums, comprising

78.9% of visitors (Farrell & Medvedeva, 2010). According to Farrell and Medvedeva (2010), the

percentage gap between White and non-White museum visitors has grown continuously since

1992. Based on this data, most United States museums are only useful to a small segment of the

society, overlooking diverse cultures, races, ethnicities, education, social status, and age groups

existing in this country.

Falk (1998) argues that there are many factors beyond simple demographic variables that

significantly influence who visits museums and who does not. His framework includes

demographic variables (e.g., age, education), along with psychographic variables (e.g.,

individual’s attitudes toward leisure and education), personal and cultural history variables (e.g.,

early childhood experiences), and environmental variables (e.g., advertising and word-of-mouth

recommendations). Evaluated by psychographic variables, he argues that most museum-goers

place a high value on lifelong learning for themselves and their families (Falk, 1998). They like

to challenge, explore, and discover new things and think that going to museums is a valuable

learning experience (Falk, 1998). Therefore, their primary purpose for visiting museums is to
 66

learn, which is why frequent museum-goers have higher levels of education than non-frequent

visitors (Falk, 1998). On the other hand, many feel that they do not have sufficient background

knowledge or the “cultivated aesthetic taste (‘cultural capital’)” necessary to understand museum

content and to be a part of the museum culture (Farrell & Medvedeva, 2010, p. 13). They also

feel intimidated and excluded by “historically-grounded cultural barriers” while others do not

feel that museum offerings are relevant to them (Farrell & Medvedeva, 2010, p. 13).

In addition, visitors’ personal and cultural history affects their tendency to visit museums.

For example, if a child is taken to a museum by his or her parents, he or she is more likely to

visit museums as an adult (Falk, 1998). As environmental factors, museum advertisements and

word-of-mouth recommendations have a great impact on both first-time and frequent museum

visitors (Falk, 1998). For instance, a person who has friends who visit museums regularly also

tends to visit them often (Falk, 1998). Falk (1998) predicts that while museum-goers’

psychographic characteristics are unlikely to change, the number of people who value learning

new things in their leisure time will increase. He adds that as America becomes more of a

“learning society,” museums have great potential for playing a significant role in meeting the

needs of those who want to learn new things as part of a process of lifelong education (Falk,

1998, p. 42).

Having established these tendencies, what kind of activities do non-frequent museum

visitors look for in their leisure time and what kind of changes can museums make to bring these

people in? In order to investigate such questions, Farrell and Medvedeva (2010) recruited three

focus groups from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, educational levels, ages (but limited

from 16 to 25), and museum-going experiences in order to listen to what they expect to

experience and learn in museum settings. According to Farrell and Medvedeva (2010), the focus
 67

group participants closely reflect the demographic composition of the United States in the near

future. Through focus group discussions, the two researchers found that what the participants

want from museum experiences is something “interactive, immersive, and participatory” (Farrell

& Medvedeva, 2010, p. 23). Some focus group participants desire interactive, diverse, and

relevant art museum exhibitions and programs, with more hands-on activities and options to

choose from. Others would like to see their museum as a sort of lounge, “a place conducive to

sitting and contemplating, talking and socializing, as well as learning” (Farrell & Medvedeva,

2010, p. 23). According to Farrell and Medvedeva (2010), most focus group participants do not

select museums as their leisure destination, describing most museums as “static places (‘places

that exhibit things’), didactic places (where the learning was not fun or engaging), and places

where you have to be quiet and stand outside looking in” (p. 25).

While the focus groups may not completely represent future museum-goers’ desires, the

discussion provides a rough idea of kinds of changes museums can make to become more

broadly attractive. They need to evolve into more community-based, informal, and

communicative learning places (Farrell & Medvedeva, 2010).

Silverman and O’Neill (2004) emphasize the importance of visitor studies that

enable museums to understand complex patterns of museum visitors and find new ways to

engage more diverse audiences. According to a session entitled Non-Visitor Studies:

Researching the Needs and Experiences of New Audiences at the 2011 Visitor Studies

Association Conference, held in Chicago, IL, from July 24 to 27, conducting a non-visitor

study is critical for a museum in order to find out who is not coming to the museum and

why, therefore, allowing it to attract members of the non-visitor population to the museum

(Linett et al., 2011).

 68

The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, offers an example of how carefully executed

visitor studies can help a museum understand and address its community’s interests and

needs. The museum hired an audience research and program evaluation team, Decision

Information Resources (DIR). DIR researchers conducted phone interviews with about 400

residents of each community in Houston to uncover the key barriers that kept people away

from the museum. The most common barriers cited were the lack of awareness of

exhibitions and programs, the sense that museum offerings were not relevant to potential

visitors’ lives, lack of appropriate transportation, and a perceived inability to find a person

to accompany potential visitors to the museum (Schneider, 1998). Some even thought that

they needed to be dressed up to visit the museum (Schneider, 1998).

In response to these findings, the museum reinforced the role of public relations,

experimenting with new outreach and communication programs. Local churches, schools,

and other groups helped overcome the transportation barrier (Schneider, 1998). Museum

educators altered programs and exhibitions to incorporate the perspectives of community

members and encourage them to interpret works of art in ways relevant to their culture,

arts, and daily life (Schneider, 1998). The key to removing these barriers was to let people

know that they were welcome and that the museum offered programs and exhibitions that

they could relate to. The museum hired a public relations company to attract diverse

audiences and used local newspapers, national TV station, and local radio station to

advertise exhibitions, programs, and events (Schneider, 1998). Through visitor studies,

active outreach programs, and constant collaboration, the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston,

succeeded in understanding what their community members want to experience from

 69

museums and why certain groups do not visit it, critical first steps toward recruiting more

diverse audiences.

Community-based Museums

A number of museums have already begun to address the needs described above and to

develop their identity as community-based learning centers through innovative educational

programs, exhibitions, and other inclusive projects. The Springville Museum of Art in Utah, for

example, creates an intimate network that unites the museum and community members through

community-based, family-oriented educational programs and special events (Gray & Graham,

2007). Community members work as volunteers to help organize programs, assist with

exhibitions, workshops, and special events, and serve on the Board of Trustees (Gray & Graham,

2007). Many programs and workshops provided by the museum involve local universities,

schools, and other cultural institutions.

The Springville Museum also provides a statewide network for Utah residents through

the State Wide Arts Partnership (SWAP). The museum acts as the headquarters for the SWAP,

which connects K-12 schools, art museums, and universities (Gray & Graham, 2007). Together

all partners provide educational materials, such as posters, art packets, and integrated lesson

plans on the subjects of art, social studies, language arts, math, and sciences, to schools and

educational centers in Utah free of charge (Gray & Graham, 2007). Through this program, the

museum shares the importance and value of culture, history, and arts of the community with

teachers so that they can share their appreciation with students and their parents.

Gray and Graham (2007) argue that the Springville Museum of Art is closely tied to its

community “like few other institutions in the country” (p. 309). The museum’s innovative

programs and exhibitions connected to local culture and community provide unique
 70

opportunities for members of the community to “come to know and cherish the place in which

they live” (Gray & Graham, 2007, p. 309). A sense of belongingness among community

members is created and the city’s identity is developed and cherished. As Springville mayor Fritz

Boyer colorfully puts it, the museum is considered “our town’s living room” (Gray & Graham,

2007, p. 305).

Another example of a community-based museum is the Anacostia Community Museum,

which was established as a Smithsonian institution in 1967 to specifically serve the African

American population of the economically-depressed Anacostia area of the District of Columbia

and to attract this historically underrepresented segment of the population to the mainstream

Smithsonian museums on the Mall (James, 1996). The current mission of the museum is to serve

as a community-based cultural center for the communities and residents of the D.C. area

(Anacostia Community Musuem, n.d.). The museum programs and exhibitions mainly feature

histories, arts, cultures, stories, and experiences of local community members, families, and

minority groups presented from the perspectives of community members themselves (Anacostia

Community Musuem, n.d.).

According to James’ (1996) analysis, engaging community members in museum culture

and the museum in community culture does not require “bigger buildings and facilities, program

auditoriums, exhibition spaces, and larger artifact repositories” (p. 44). Rather, it requires “the

uncharted waters of relationships” (James, 1996, p. 44). James (1996) goes on to insist that

success depends on building stronger bridges to connect museums, public institutions, and the

community to each other.

The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, which I mentioned earlier, shares characteristics of

community-based learning centers. According to Marzio (1998), working with the local
 71

communities is the most important role of the museum. In 1993, the museum seized the

opportunity to engage more actively with community members from the most economically

depressed areas of Houston through a five-year, museum-wide audience development project, “A

Place for All People” funded in part by the Lila Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund (LWRDF)

(Schneider, 1998).

The project focused on three Houston communities: the Third Ward, a predominantly

African American Community; the East End, a largely Hispanic population; and the Near

Northwest, a largely Anglo, ethnically mixed population (Schneider, 1998). According to zip-

code surveys of museum visitors, residents in these three communities were identified as non-

frequent museum visitors or non-visitors (Schneider, 1998). The goal of the project was to

collaborate with existing cultural and educational institutions in each community, such as public

schools, libraries, churches, parks, social service agencies, and other groups that already had a

stake in the interests and needs of community members (Schneider, 1998).

A variety of community-based programs and exhibitions were created and developed

through the collective efforts of museum staff members, local cultural and educational

institutions, and members of the community (Schneider, 1998). The major focus of the programs

was to interpret the museum’s existing works of art for the target communities and to transform

existing programs, such as family days, outreach exhibitions, lectures, symposia, programs for

senior adults, and others, into more community-centered ones (Schneider, 1998). The vision was

for the entire museum to be genuinely oriented toward the community-building project. It was a

vision that challenged and transformed the entire educational aspect of the museum (Schneider,

1998).
 72

Through “A Place for All People,” the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, learned that

building audiences requires much time and committed effort. The staff came to a new

understanding that the museum’s collection embodies a variety of meanings that “include and go

beyond art historical and the museum is committed to expanding the interpretation of the

collection to reflect the ideas of teachers, students, children, art experts, and novices alike”

(Schneider, 1998, p. 28). Although the funding for “A Place for All People” ended in 1998, the

project goes on because, as the museum recognizes, the process of building communities does

not have a beginning or end but must be embedded in museum practice continuously.

The Ak-Chin Community Ecomuseum, located on the northern edge of the Sonoran

desert, 40 miles south of Phoenix, is another example of a community-based museum. The Ak-

Chin people, a Native American group, have lived in this area for thousands of years (Stokrocki,

1996). They consider everything, including people, land, buildings, and farms, part of the large

living museum. One of the main buildings in the museum area is the Him-Dak, a multi-purpose

meeting area. The Him-Dak building was originally built “to store and restore tribal artifacts,

serve as a library, house the tribal newspaper, hold tribal meetings, and socialize” (Stokrocki,

1996, p. 41). While the buildings in the museum area function as traditional museum buildings in

terms of exhibitions, preservation, and research, the concept of the ecomuseum among Ak-Chin

people is much broader. They see the entire land as an exhibition and use the Him-Dak building

to “promote cultural identity, education, and dialogue between the generations of the Ak-Chin

and with other tribes” (Stokrocki, 1996, p. 41).

In this sense, the Ak-Chin Community Ecomuseum is not a depository but a living

organization involving nature, people, and other cultural and educational institutions. According

to Stokrocki (1996), many artists reside in the area to enjoy the peacefulness, and local art
 73

teachers visit the museum to find new perspectives for their teaching practice. Thus, the museum

acts as a liaison among institutions and as a community gathering place (Stokrocki, 1996).

As this literature review reveals, the topics of cultural diversity and social inclusion in art

museums are not new. However, I aim to approach them from a more holistic angle. In order to

study the museum organization, its community, primary services, working culture, and

communication system, I will rely on the conceptual framework of an organization as an open

system and cultural place, investigating relationships among involved members and

environments. There are a number of studies and articles featuring art museums as community-

based environments. In addition, the literature views a museum as a complex, systematic, and

cultural organization in relation to its diversity practices as part of the larger society while some

of the museum literature fails to address complexity and inclusion. The focus of my study is to

holistically understand the culture of the museum and community and to investigate the museum

as an integral part of the community through the use of ethnography, which enables richer and

more complex descriptions.

 74

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY—ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY

This chapter includes an overview of ethnographic case study methodology and the

details of the research design and methods. As part of ethnographic inquiry, this study adopts a

naturalistic research approach and narrative writing style. Furthermore, this chapter presents a

rationale for choosing the case study approach, in general, as well as my approach to data

collection. I also continue my discussion of method development and the process of data

collection, analysis, and interpretation, using the existing literature on ethnography and case

study design in relation to my project. Finally, I acknowledge the limitations of the methods.

Ethnographic Case Study

Ethnography serves as the primary methodology for this case study of the Avery Art

Museum, although small-scale historical research about the institution is included as part of

Chapters Four and Five when discussing the museum and community’s historical context. While

my three-month study is considered short compared to traditional ethnographic studies, I adopted

the methods that traditional ethnography often uses, such as interviews and participant

observations, to study the culture of the Avery, with which I was not familiar.

Ethnographic methods are often used to study groups of people and organizations (Patton

& Westby, 1992). As ethnography as qualitative methodology focuses on human behaviors and

interactions, I use it to understand the culture of the museum in relation to its staff members and

surrounding environments. My approach includes observing and understanding relationships

among people as well as non-human aspects of the museum, such as the physical spaces,

collection, mission and vision, programs, exhibitions, visitor interactions, and community’s

perceptions to the museum.

 75

Since the ethnographic research approach involves ongoing attempts to understand

specific cultures, groups, individuals, events, and phenomena in a deep and meaningful way,

aspects of it have been frequently combined with other qualitative research methodologies

including case studies or phenomenology (Merriam, 2002). In order to achieve an in-depth

understanding, ethnographic inquiries are usually limited to a few cases, a single setting, an

organization, or a group of people (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). This doctoral study utilized

ethnographic methods to deeply examine the particular culture of one art museum within its

building and community while surrounded by other cultural and educational institutions,

commercial businesses, and community members. Because ethnography allows the kind of in-

depth examination of interconnections among participants and related environments, it also

supports the theoretical framework of the dissertation, seeing an organization as an open and

cultural system that is dependent on the changes of all parts of the system.

Ethnographic Inquiry

Ethnographic research was originally developed by anthropologists as a way to study

specific cultures and groups within their social, cultural, economic, and spatial context. In its

original manifestation, it was often associated with the concept of otherness, and was generally

used for locations and cultures located outside mainstream Western culture (Hammersley &

Atkinson, 2007; Merriam, 2002; Tedlock, 2000; Wolcott, 2008). According to Barbara Tedlock

(2000) and Paul Hammersley and Martyn Atkinson (2007), this relatively narrow view of

ethnography has expanded to a broader notion of ethnography becoming a well-acknowledged

research methodology in various fields such as cultural studies, literary theory, and even

industrial engineering. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) and Harry F. Wolcott (2008) view

ethnographic inquiry as including both first-hand empirical investigation as well as theoretical

 76

interpretations of human cultures and organizations. Ethnography usually involves a researcher’s

participation in people’s daily lives for an extended period of time and is associated with a

variety of research methods in open-ended application (Davies, 2007; Hammersley & Atkinson,

2007).

According to Wolcott (2008), however, ethnography is more than a methodology. While

ethnographic methods such as participant observation (fieldwork), interviewing, and archival

examination are broadly applied in many qualitative studies, Wolcott (2008) argues that this

approach, borrowing ethnographic techniques, needs to be separated from doing ethnography.

For Wolcott (2008), ethnographic researchers not only experience and enquire about cultures and

human activities through participant observation and interviewing but also strive to understand

and create meaning out of specific human cultures and activities. Therefore, ethnographic

inquiries involve both “descriptive questions as to how, and understanding questions as to

meanings imputed to action” (Wolcott, 2008, p. 74).

Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) explain that contemporary ethnography is often

associated with constructivism and post-modern approaches, while it rejects the realist belief that

a true reality can be presented in a linear and straightforward manner, with knowledge based on a

secure foundation independent from human experience. According to Hammersley and Atkinson

(2007), ethnography also rejects positivism and pure naturalism. While the former is based on

the premise that all physical phenomena can be examined and studied through controlled and

standardized research methods and experiments, the latter presupposes that social cultures and

relationships can be understood as they are, without the influence of researchers. Rather,

ethnographers tend to view society as constructed, and they acknowledge that researchers

necessarily influence the descriptions and conclusions of ethnographic studies by their

 77

perspectives (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) argue that we

are necessarily part of the social phenomena we study, and therefore our investigations inevitably

involve reflexivity, that is, our background, presuppositions, theories, and prior knowledge

influence our research. Charlotte Aull Davies (2007) agrees with Hammersley and Atkinson’s

arguments that “all researchers are to some degree connected to, or part of, the object of their

research” (p. 3).

My ethnographic research is very close to Hammersley and Atkinson’s approach to and

Wolcott’s definition of ethnography. I used ethnographic methods to collect data, which could be

borrowing ethnographic inquiries. However, my study did not end there. I used an ethnographic

inquiry to do ethnography through striving to understand the culture of the museum,

relationships among participants, and the meanings behind participants’ ideas, perspectives, and

behaviors. As Hammersley and Atkinson discussed, I also freely acknowledge that my

background, theories, and prior knowledge influenced how I used ethnographic methods,

interacted with participants, collected and interpreted data, and composed this document. By

participating in museum programs and volunteering for installation and programming execution,

I intentionally became an active part of the subject that I was studying.

Naturalistic inquiry. Ethnography is closely related to a naturalistic inquiry, which

posits that there are multiple constructed realities that can be studied in a holistic manner

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A researcher cannot understand whole, multiple realities under

investigation in isolation from their native context, and a phenomenon cannot be explained by

looking at each part of the entire phenomenon. Therefore, a phenomenon “must be studied in its

full-scale influence (force) field” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 39).

 78

In this regard, the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the research setting but

rather to observe “a naturally occurring event, program, clinical setting, community, relation, or

interaction that has no predetermined course established by and for the researcher” (Patton &

Westby, 1992, p. 5). I observed the natural museum setting as it is to understand connections and

relationships without disturbing the existing systems, which allowed me to understand multiple

realities of the museum within its context. This does not mean that my existence and perspectives

did not influence how I interacted with participants and how the participants spoke and behaved

around me. In other words, in naturalistic inquiry, “the inquirer and the ‘object’ of inquiry

interact to influence one another; knower and known are inseparable” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.

37).

Narrative writing approach. Because ethnographic studies are associated with the

multiple realities of subject, participants, and researcher, they often involve deep descriptions

and a narrative writing style. Data processes and interactions with participants are influenced by

the researcher’s perspectives, feelings, and experiences, and the final written product can come

out as a narrative form of stories that include both perspectives of the researcher and the

researched. I will provide a brief introduction to narrative inquiry and an explanation of how I

adopted it in the following paragraphs.

What Polkinghorne (1995) calls narrative analysis is a research approach in which

“researchers collect descriptions of events and happenings and synthesize or configure them by

means of a plot into a story or stories” (p. 12). Thomas Barone (2007) prefers the term narrative

construction because he views this type of research more as “an act of textual arrangement than

of analysis” (p. 456). Narrative construction is often closely related to ethnographic studies as

ethnographers started to include their field experiences in forms of narrative stories in their
 79

studies along with the ethnographic memoir (Tedlock, 1991). According to Tedlock (1991),

traditional ethnography has been often associated with the participant observation that requires a

more distanced attitude on the part of the researcher toward the researched culture and subjects.

However, in the beginning of the 1970s, the approach of participant observation has shifted to

observation of participation that emphasizes more of the researcher’s experiences, reflections,

and processes in fieldwork (Tedlock, 1991). A well-written narrative ethnographic study can

include perspectives, representations, and experiences of both the self and others (Tedlock,

1991).

While narrative inquiry is used broadly outside of ethnographic studies and can be an

independent research methodology itself in many different disciplines, I argue that my narrative

approach is linked to the ethnographic inquiry I used for this study. As Tedlock (1991)

discussed, my existence in the field provided me an opportunity to observe my participation in

the field as well the participation of study informants. Although the narrative research and

writing approach enable me to share both my perspectives and that of others, the stories told in

the study inevitably have fictional qualities and issues of relativity. According to Geertz (1973),

all ethnographic studies are fictions if one applies the original meaning of the word fictio as

something made and fashioned. In my study, I use pseudonyms for all participants, museum,

community, and other related entities. Therefore, it carries a fictional quality but not in a sense of

fictions broadly known as fabricated and manipulated stories. Having said that, other researchers

with different approaches and conceptual framework could tell a different story of the Avery and

its community, which is further discussed in the Limitations of the Methodology section at the

end of the chapter.

 80

Case Study Inquiry

On the Case: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research by Anne Haas Dyson and

Celia Genishi has been particularly useful to me in designing my case study. While most of the

examples in the text focus on the field of linguistics, the authors’ detailed descriptions and

examples of how ethnographic case studies can be done have been instructive. Dyson and

Genishi (2005) use the word case as a verb to describe the process of creating a detailed research

design, which incorporates careful consideration of the physical places that are meaningful to

participants, the configuration of time that is relevant to the selected research site, and the people

who interact with the space and schedule. Applying their definition, I cased the Avery Art

Museum by studying the distribution of space, time, and people. The museum building,

including gallery and lobby spaces and the outside look of the building, was carefully

investigated in relation to visitor perceptions about the museum. Through observing the physical

spaces of different sub-communities in River City, I describe characteristics of the community in

my study. While the focus of the study was investigating the Avery’s current practices, its

history and changes in the past were examined to understand how the past influenced today’s

Avery. I also studied the culture of the Avery, including its management style and

communication system that are created by people who work at the museum and informed by

people who use the museum’s services.

While On the Case focuses on the ethnographic case study as a qualitative research

methodology in language and literacy research, Robert Stake’s book The Art of Case Study

Research is more focused on the ins and outs of case study research designs in general

qualitative studies, which is not limited to ethnography. According to Stake (1995), case study

research should not be associated with sampling research because one case cannot be assumed to
 81

be representative of other similar cases. Rather, case study research is appropriate to use when

the focus is to understand a unique case within its grounded cultural and social context (Stake,

1995). Case studies directly deal with a unique, specific, and complex phenomenon.

Stake (1995) identifies three different types of case study research: intrinsic,

instrumental, and collective case studies. In an intrinsic case study, the researcher is not

interested in understanding other cases through studying a single case but rather she desires to

thoroughly learn about the one particular case because of its intrinsic research value (Stake,

1995). An instrumental case study, on the other hand, involves a particular case that is

“examined to provide insight into an issue or refinement of theory” (Stake, 1994, p.237). For

example, a case study, which focuses on a particular school, would be categorized as

“instrumental” if the purpose of the inquiry was to understand the effects of a specific policy,

which would likely be found in other schools affected by the policy as well. Therefore, an

instrumental case study may provide a general understanding of a phenomenon through using a

particular case. Lastly a collective case study may have both intrinsic and instrumental

approaches as it involves multiple cases (Stake, 1995). This approach is also known as multiple-

case studies.

I see my own research as an intrinsic case study. I am interested in knowing how the

Avery functions as a premier art museum in River City within the community’s unique cultural,

educational, and arts backgrounds, and how the museum can become an active, relevant part of

the River City community. However, the study has instrumental qualities at the same time. While

the Avery and its community are unique in many ways, it has similarities to other small- to

medium-sized art museums in medium-sized Midwestern metropolitan cities. The Avery’s

 82

effectiveness, challenges, and suggestions regarding being an active, relevant element of the

River City community can be applied to similar art museums.

Rationale for choosing the case study. As I previously mentioned, this dissertation

consists primarily of an in-depth case study of the Avery Art Museum. Before I explain the

details of how the case study was executed, I will discuss why I chose to focus on one specific

case. According to Robert K. Yin (2009, p. 18), a case study is “an empirical inquiry that

investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context.” Yin (2009)

goes on to explain that the case study methodology is preferred and appropriate when how-

and/or why-type research questions are raised, when an investigator has little or no control over

events, and when activities of interest are contemporary and observable in a real-life context

(Yin, 2009).

My research satisfies all of Yin’s criteria. First, my research questions aim to investigate

how the museum is connected to the community and how relationships among its elements with

the community affect the museum’s overall practice. Second, as a student-researcher and

institutional outsider, I had no control over the case museum’s organization, governance,

educational programs, exhibitions, or staff composition. Therefore, it was most appropriate for

me to begin by investigating, exploring, and observing specific events. Lastly, my interest is not

historical but focused on today’s museum practices. A case study affords an excellent

opportunity to investigate the current phenomena occurring in a museum within its real-life

context. While I include some historical information about the museum’s practice, the main

focus is to understand and observe the current culture of the institution. An ethnographic case

study offered the ideal means of investigating the questions that interest me.
 83

Discussion of generalizability. Dyson and Genishi (2005) emphasize that even though

case studies are grounded in specific physical spaces, time periods, and people, their findings can

be generalized and applied to other similar settings within and even outside of the field of focus.

They also point out that case studies are part of the social phenomena that researchers study and,

therefore, can be treated as representative of the phenomenon (Dyson & Genishi, 2005). For

example, the way in which one particular Cantonese-speaking child learns English grammar and

vocabulary can predict, to a degree, how other Cantonese children will learn English. Thus, the

study can be a valuable part of a larger academic and professional conversation and provide an

alternative perspective to early linguistic development literature, which utilized different

methods, such as quantitative assessments or surveys.

I understand that the generalization of qualitative case study research may not be

acceptable since case studies deal with specific phenomena within unique contexts. I was even

advised not to attempt a generalization from one case study. However, through reading On the

Case, I have learned that case studies can be applicable to other situations within a specific

content and background and, therefore, may be helpful for guiding other researchers who study

similar phenomena. I realize that my research can be applicable to other educational and research

settings and become part of the larger academic conversation. Readers can decide what aspects

of this study are applicable to their unique situation, practice, or research.

Stake (1995) asserts that case studies are designed to study particularization, not

generalization, although “petite generalization” can occur when a researcher develops and refines

arguments and conclusions within the case study. Rather, case studies open up topics for readers

to make various interpretations and naturalistic generalizations, which are “conclusions arrived

at through personal engagement in life’s affairs or by vicarious experience so well constructed

 84

that the person feels as if it happened to themselves” (Stake, 1995, p. 86). Therefore, researchers’

personal interpretations, personal descriptions, and narrative account and stories, which

emphasize the time, space, and people of a case, actually help readers make naturalistic

generalizations that matter to their personal lives and experiences. These constructed experiences

also become the reader’s body of personal knowledge and modify existing generalizations.

Therefore, generalization is up to the reader rather than the writer.

Yin agrees with Stake that case studies are not suitable for universal generalization, but a

certain degree of generalization is allowed. Yin (2009) argues that case studies are not suitable

for statistical generalization because selected cases are not sampling units, even if the study

includes multiple cases. Rather, cases are selected because of their unique, experimental

conditions. Yin (2009) argues that from this unique circumstance, case study researchers seek

analytic generalizations. Analytic generalization is applied when a previously developed theory

is applied and compared to later case studies (Yin, 2009). In other words, what can be

generalized is the overarching analytic theory or approach, not the case itself.

My goal is to encourage readers to make naturalistic generalizations, but at the same time

to enable other researchers to apply my analytic and research approach to future art education

and museum studies.

Approach to Data Collection and Research Design

My primary approach to data collection was to establish a dynamic presence at the

museum and to interact with people involved in the museum’s day-to-day practices. My

interaction took various forms. I conducted informal/formal interviews, including in-depth, open-

ended, and group interviews, straight observation, and informal conversation with almost all staff

members in the museum, including the former director, interim directors, board members,
 85

curators, educators, security staff, facility managers, docents, volunteers, lectures, artists, and

visitors. I also interviewed and interacted with people in the community who are involved with

museum activities. Some of them are artists, professors, teachers, and community leaders. The

total duration of on-site research or data collection was three months, from May to August of

2011, and the total number of participants was 58. I rented a room at a house in Watertown,

River City, where the museum is located, and went to the museum almost every day for

observations and interviews, or I was out in the community meeting people and attending

community meetings and arts and cultural activities. Further discussion of each data collection

method follows in the Research Design section.

Approach to Data Collection and Participants

By taking an active member position as a researcher, I was involved with the museum’s

variety of activities, such as meetings, programs, and special events within and outside the

museum building. However, because I was not a full member of the museum staff, I was not

allowed to be in the executive committee meetings. In addition, I was not able to speak with

about two-thirds of the board members. Sometimes I felt that they ignored my emails asking to

set up an interview. This created a boundary that I could not cross as an outside researcher. This

would have been possible if I was taking a complete member position as one of the staff

members, which was not an option for me. Despite these invisible boundaries, I intended to

achieve a tone of being helpful, approachable, and professional at the museum. I was able to

build trust among staff members. They were comfortable with me working at some of their

events and talking to museum visitors. Some of them even asked me to join in some volunteer

activities, which made me feel like I was part of the museum and community.
 86

Because of my friendly, helpful tone of approach and involvement with the museum

practices, most of the staff members were open with me in terms of sharing their perspectives

and opinions about the museum’s practices and interactions among staff members, visitors, and

other cultural organizations in the community. Some of them even anonymously shared about

interpersonal communication issues that were considered controversial. In addition, by showing

them my serious and sincere attitude toward the museum’s practices and doing research, I

assured them that my study was valuable and done in a professional manner and the results

would be as valid as possible. Overall, this informal approach allowed me to build a positive

rapport with my participants, which resulted in their being more open to my research

methodology and more willing to share their perspectives and ideas. Of course, some participants

were more open with their views than others.

There were challenges as a stranger in a new place. The most difficult aspect of being a

researcher in a completely new environment is to overcome the feeling that I did not belong to

the community and the museum. I also found myself occasionally worrying about becoming a

nuisance to staff members and visitors at the museum. Sometimes I found myself trying to make

excuses for not attending a meeting. However, I forced myself to attend as many meetings as

possible. It occurred to me that my occasional uncomfortable feelings may have reflected reasons

why some people do not visit the Avery. I discuss more about this in Chapter Six.

Research Design

Data collection often starts from the beginning stage of the research design. Through

searching for a research site, getting to know major contact people and participants, and doing

preliminary research on the case, the researcher gathers data in a causal manner (Stake, 2005).
 87

The most important and initial step to data gathering is to get permission from the participants

and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for studying human subjects.

Getting access. Dyson and Genishi (2005) emphasize that it is very important to

approach people at the desired case site in a friendly, yet systematic manner and to create a

consent form that is easy to understand and avoids academic terminology (Dyson & Genishi,

2005). In my case, I met my main contact person, Tina, at a museum conference during the

summer of 2010. She is the director of the Museum Studies program at the Midwestern

University that is affiliated with the Avery. After my presentation in which I outlined my

research interests and dissertation plans, she and I had a chance to discuss possible research sites

for my dissertation study. She recommended the Avery as a possible research site during the

conversation. Inspired by her suggestion, I conducted preliminary research on the museum and

discovered that staff members were striving to reach out to surrounding sub-communities and

attract more non-museum-goers in the community to the museum. I explained why I chose the

Avery as my research site in depth in Chapter One.

Knowing Tina facilitated my access to the museum because she was affiliated with the

museum through her academic position. She asked the museum’s interim director at the time and

other senior level staff members if I could study the museum for three months during the summer

of 2011. Since I had previously known Tina through academic activities, the museum staff

members were more open to my research and did not feel like they were having a complete

stranger in their museum.

Because my study involves human participation and observation of human subjects, I was

required to apply for and receive the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. To do this, I

submitted an electronic submission form, which required me to include informed consent forms,
 88

all measures such as interview protocols and outlines of other research methods, and letter from

the museum that gave me permission to conduct my study in the museum. The study was fully

approved by the IRB (approval number 35359) on March 29, 2010 and by the participants, who

signed the informed consent forms.

Data collection. I used different types of data collection methods in order to triangulate

the collected data, and thereby, enhance the validity of the final report. Triangulation reduces the

risk that the conclusions of a study reflect prejudices and personal biases based on a single data

collection method or source (Maxwell, 2005). I used interviews, including casual conversations,

formal interviews, and group interviews, direct observation, journaling, other visual means, and

an unconventional method of walking to collect the data. Archival data collection was obtained

through the museum’s server and online research.

Interviews. About half of the collected data is comprised of interview transcripts.

According to Dyson and Genishi (2005), interviewing is a useful research method for gaining

access to unobservable aspects of participants’ experience, such as their feelings or opinions.

Especially in case studies whose main purpose is to obtain descriptions and interpretations of

others, the interview is often used as a primary means to approach multiple realities and diverse

perspectives of the case (Stake, 2005). Interviews can include individual and group face-to-face

verbal exchanges as well as mailed or self-administered questionnaires and surveys (Fontana &

Frey, 1994). My study includes both individual in-person interviews as well as group interviews.

As mentioned above, I interviewed almost all staff members, 10 visitors, and selected

community members. The total number of interviews conducted is more than 60, which include

casual group conversations. All interviews except two were recorded, generating approximately
 89

40 hours of audio data. For the two interviews that were not audio recorded, I took notes during

the interviews.

The interview questions were designed according to guidelines provided by Corrine

Glesne in her book, Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction (2005). I was

particularly mindful of Glesne’s advice to be aware of the relationship between research

questions and interview questions. According to Glesne, the purpose of interview questions is to

find answers to the research questions. However, she warns against directly transforming

research questions into interview questions as interview questions should be much more

contextual and specific than research questions (Glesne, 2005; Maxwell, 2005). Creativity and

insight are required to compose questions which will yield answers that illuminate the

phenomenon studied by drawing from participants’ lives and perspectives in context (Glesne,

2005).

James Spradley’s book, Ethnographic Interview, was also instrumental in guiding the

design of my interview process and questions. Spradley (1979, p. 78) argues that ethnographic

interviewing “involves two distinct but complementary processes: developing rapport and

eliciting information.” In other words, it is imperative that the researcher develops a positive

rapport between herself and participants in a desirable interview setting so that participants will

feel comfortable sharing their ideas, thoughts, and experiences. “A basic sense of trust . . . allows

for the free flow of information” (Spradley, 1979, p. 78). I heeded Spradley’s advice by trying to

build a sense of trust and comfort with my participants before posing interview questions. For

example, as a warm-up to more site-specific questions, I often opened an interview by sharing

some personal information about my own professional background and asking about theirs. I did

not read prepared questions but rather memorized and infused them into the conversation as
 90

seemed appropriate. This approach established a comfortable, informal tone. I also encouraged

participants to feel free to ask me questions and to make comments at any time, to eliminate the

possibility that they would feel that they were being interrogated. I think it was important that I

volunteered at many events and presented myself as a helper rather than a stranger or evaluator.

It was important to me that everyone involved knew that I was there to contribute to the museum

rather than to simply use the museum for my own purposes.

Spradley (1979) categorized ethnographic interview questions into five groups: grand

tour questions, mini-tour questions, example questions, experience questions, and native-

language questions. Grand- and mini-tour questions ask participants about general images of

their surroundings while example and experience questions request more detailed information

about events and activities. Native-language questions are used to gain a richer understanding of

the meanings of certain words and phrases or unique cultural aspects that informants are

immersed in on a daily basis but may be misunderstood by outsiders. My interview incorporated

all five types of interview questions. For example, in order to understand the community

holistically, I asked grand tour questions, such as “What do you think about the community?” or

“How would you describe your community?” I also used mini-tour questions in order to gain

information about the culture and practices of the museum. I found example and experience

questions very useful in examining the museum’s communication and organizational systems

and day-to-day practices. I used native-language questions throughout the research process

whenever I noticed unfamiliar language uses, expressions, or terms that I sensed were used in

context-specific ways.

Although I had prepared interview protocols and had them with me during interviews, I

tried to avoid the formal traditional position of interviewer and interviewee, where the
 91

interviewer is expected not to show her expressions or share feelings (Fontana & Frey, 1994).

Rather, I operated at the same level as my interviewees and engaged in natural conversations

with them. It has been argued that this reciprocal approach makes the interviewee respond more

honestly and reliably because “it treats the respondent as an equal, allows him or her to express

personal feelings, and therefore presents a more ‘realistic’ picture that can be uncovered using

traditional interview methods” (Fontana & Frey, 1994, p. 371). I also engaged in several

informal group interviews, which allowed me to observe and listen to the dynamics of group

conversations and behaviors that cannot be observed in the individual setting.

Observations. According to Stake (2005), “observations work the researcher toward

greater understanding of the case” (p. 60) and they are directed to the specific research questions.

Adler and Adler (1994) describe observation as “the fundamental base of all research methods”

(p. 389). They go on to discuss the noninterventionist and naturalistic aspect of observation as a

research method (Adler & Adler, 1994). When researchers observe their subjects, they do not

attempt to manipulate or deliberately set up a new experimental setting that can change the

behaviors of subjects and, consequently, the results of the study (Adler & Adler, 1994).

However, the level of the researcher’s involvement with the subjects and research settings can

vary based on the position and role of the researcher. Over time, qualitative research in general

has shifted towards greater researcher involvement to such an extent that researchers often take

on a membership position (Adler & Adler, 1994; Angrosino, 2005). This is done because many

researchers realize that taking an active or complete member position allows them to have deeper

access to the culture and perspectives of people and place within the unique context. In addition,

when a researcher enters a research setting, she is necessarily a part of it.

 92

One critical issue related to observation is the inherent subjectivity of the observer. As

Michael V. Angrosino (2005) discusses in his article “Recontextualizing Observation:

Ethnography, Pedagogy, and the Prospects for a Progressive Political Agenda,” what is observed

in any research process is necessarily dependent on the researcher, the subjects, and the

contextual circumstances. He goes on to argue that objective truth about the phenomenon being

studied cannot be established because conflicting versions and interpretations of cultures or

groups of people are inevitable (Angrosino, 2005). Rather than seeing this as a liability of the

method, Angrosino urges researchers to actively solicit participants’ perspectives and

interpretations so that phenomena can be “viewed,” in a sense, from different angles. This type

of collaborative research involves more than just asking participants for their opinions. Rather, it

requires egalitarian participation from researchers and their subjects. For my study, I solicited as

much feedback and involvement from participants as possible so that I could reevaluate my

analysis and interpretations in light of their perspectives and avoid being blinded by personal

biases or assumptions.

Journaling. For this type of qualitative study, keeping a daily journal of field notes is

invaluable. Dyson and Genishi (2005) suggest that field notes should include descriptions of the

physical space and activities being observed as well as reflective comments on those

observations. In other words, researchers should not only record what they observe but also keep

track of what they think and feel about their observations of and interactions with the research

site and participants. These reflective comments can be considered an initial step of preliminary

analysis and thematic coding, which become extremely helpful when subsequent analysis and

interpretation commence following the period of data collection. I kept a very detailed journal of

my observations and feelings while I was interacting with the research site and participants. I
 93

documented the journal in a Word document at the end of every working day. The journal

includes my comments, feelings, and preliminary analysis.

Other visual means of data collection. Along with collecting verbal data as described

above, I also used photographs, sketches, and other visual diagrams to help reflect my

understanding of the museum. According to Douglas Harper (1994), photography is traditionally

associated with the field of anthropology, where it historically was used to provide visual

information for the classification of races and to support theories of social evolution.

Photography has also been used as a research method in the field of ethnography. While early

use of photographic images in ethnography was understood to be capable of representing

realistic, true depictions of the studied culture, current thinking construes photographs, like

textual descriptions, to be necessarily constructed and interpreted through the cultural and

personal lens of the photographer and viewers (Harper, 1994). The latter view is associated with

a postmodern perspective, which views “the idea of ethnography as ‘partial truth’ rather than

complete document” (Harper, 1994, p. 407). In my study, I used photography mainly as a means

of collecting visual information that could serve as a visual reminder of my observations. To

protect confidentiality, I cannot share the photographs that show obvious identity of the research

site in this dissertation. However, they were used extensively as a way to enrich my written

descriptions of the museum and the surrounding community.

Along with photographs, I incorporated visual mapping and drawing. Like the

photographs, these served as reminders to me while I was writing up my findings, but they were

also utilized as data display techniques in the reporting stage. These visual depictions provide

readers an alternative means of making sense of analytic descriptions and interpretations. For
 94

example, by displaying the museum’s organizational chart, readers can more easily understand

my verbal explanation or description of the museum structure.

Walking as research method. I conceptualized walking as an essential research method

in my investigation of the Avery and the River City community. I walked and rode my scooter to

many places near the museum, visiting both economically depressed and vibrantly developed

parts of the River City area. Although I have not found any literature that describes walking as a

research method, in her article, “Making Sense of Place: Mapping as a Multisensory Research

Method,” Kimberly Powell (2000) alludes to the notion of walking as a research method in

discussing a mapping method. In this article, Powell (2010) shares the experience of individuals

and groups of people exploring the El Chorrillo neighborhood in Panama City, Panama, through

mapping and walking. Her description vividly evokes relationships among places, lived

experiences, and community members.

In like fashion, by walking and riding my scooter throughout the research area, I was able

to experience different landscapes and views of architecture throughout the River City area. I

was able to see how different areas of River City are divided by socio-economic status and

economic and residential functions through physical movement and actually being there to

observe the environments. I saw that some areas in River City are wealthier and better

maintained than other parts of the city. Sometimes I felt uncomfortable walking in certain areas,

where houses were run down and even empty. I was even advised not to walk alone in those

areas that are considered economically depressed and dangerous. Some houses were abandoned

with windows and doors broken, and indecipherable words were spray painted on façade of the

abandoned houses. This division of areas intensified the view that the River City community is

considered a collection of many cities and towns, where people do not tend to migrate from one
 95

to the other and do not work together as a team to improve the overall well-being of the River

City metropolitan area. In addition, through riding my scooter along the river, I recognized large

mansions overlooking the river, but some of them were empty and not maintained. This not only

implies the current economic situation of River City but also harkens back to a time when it was

a booming city on the river.

According to Rebecca Solnit (2000), “walking is a bodily labor that produces nothing but

thoughts, experiences, arrivals” (p. 5). This short line explains why I had to pull out my notes so

many times when I was walking in River City. It can be transferred to scootering as I had so

many ideas going through my brain and had to write them down as soon as I parked.

Data management. A. Michael Huberman and Matthew B. Miles (1994) define data

management “as the operations needed for a systematic, coherent process of data collection,

storage, and retrieval” (p. 428). Huberman and Miles (1994), Stake (2005), and Dyson and

Genishi (2005) emphasize the importance of timely record keeping of events being observed and

reflective descriptions and comments for further analysis and the final written report. After raw

experiences and conversations are collected through various methods, they should be converted

into compiled, extended texts, which facilitate their subsequent interpretation. For example,

audio and video recordings from meetings, interviews, and casual conversations must be

carefully transcribed and put into readily accessible forms. One reason that the compiling process

is necessary is that raw field notes and researchers’ comments collected rapidly in the moment of

observation often include indecipherable scribbles. They must be processed, corrected, extended,

explained, edited, and typed up for easy access later by both the researcher herself as well as by

other readers (Huberman & Miles, 1994). When raw data are not processed in a timely manner,

data management can easily get out of control, and it can become difficult to retrieve needed data
 96

for analysis and interpretation later. Stake (2005) and Dyson and Genishi (2005) encourage

researchers to have a reliable data management system and use many developed technologies

and computer programs, if necessary.

All raw data collected for my research was processed as rapidly as possible. As

mentioned earlier, I transferred observations and reflections from my handwritten research

journal into a Word document on a daily basis. Because of the large amount of audio data

collected, it was impossible to transcribe recordings immediately. Rather, I established a regular

transcription schedule that allowed the completion of transcription of all interviews and

conversations into text from within two months after leaving the research site. In order to

complete transcriptions in this timeframe, I utilized professional transcribers for about three

quarters of the data and transcribed the rest myself. I concurrently analyzed data and wrote up

preliminary findings on a daily basis to keep myself in touch with the writing process and to

maintain close familiarity with the data.

I did not find it necessary to use specialized software for data management. Instead, I

created my own organizational system. As data collection and processing proceeded, I identified

the following data filing categories: Museum, Community, Interviews, and Research Journal.

Anything that did not fit neatly into one of these categories was filed in a Miscellaneous folder.

Although I had a great deal of data, this management system allowed for easy access to a

complicated data set that, in turn, facilitated efficient initial analysis exercises. I sorted physical

data materials into these different files, and subsequently sorted them thematically, which is

discussed in the following section. While I used color coding and print-outs to physically move

my writings into proper themes, sorted writings were always kept in a Word format to avoid any

confusion or missing parts.

 97

Data analysis and interpretation. In a case study project, data analysis and

interpretation do not take place at a particular point in time (Stake, 1995). Rather, these processes

occur simultaneously as the researcher observes the case, talks to people, and continually refines

research questions and the overall research design. Recording the observer’s comments and

breakthroughs in the field is part of preliminary data analysis. It allows the researcher a fresh

opportunity to identify configurations, relationships, and patterns of people, culture, and

community being studied even in the relatively initial stage of data collection. This was the case

for me as I started my initial analysis by recording breakthroughs and repetitive or memorable

patterns during the data collection period.

According to Huberman and Miles (1994), data analysis involves three interrelated

processes: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. If data are not

systematically selected, sorted, and reduced based on research questions and theoretical

framework of the study, they tend to be unwieldy and difficult to analyze (Huberman & Miles,

1994). Once the collected data are reduced, they should be displayed in ways that allow

researchers to more easily observe meanings and draw conclusions. Possible forms of data

display include “structured summaries, synopses, vignettes, diagrams, and matrices” (Huberman

& Miles, 1994, p. 429). Conclusion drawing and verification are the terms used to describe the

process of identifying meaning from the displayed data. This process involves identifying

patterns and themes, performing triangulation, looking for negative cases, and asking for

verification of opinions from participants (Huberman & Miles, 1994).

While Huberman and Miles provide a general definition and approach to data analysis,

Robert C. Bogdan and Sari Knopp Biklen (2002) provide more detailed step-by-step data

analysis techniques in their book, Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory
 98

and Methods. They show examples, such as observation notes and coding systems based on real

educational research conducted previously (Bogdan & Biklen, 2002). Bogdan and Biklen (2002)

advise researchers to read their collected data many times until they see repeated words and

phrases, patterns of behaviors and ways of thinking, and events repeating and standing out.

Maxwell (2005) agrees that the initial step of data analysis is reading all of the collected data,

such as interview transcripts or observational notes. Maxwell (2005) encourages researchers to

make notes on reflections and comments while they read to assist in the process of developing

tentative ideas about categories and relationships emerging from the information. This simple

and substantial process of reading data and getting familiar with them can help researchers

discover regularities, patterns, and significant topics in their data and select words and phrases to

represent the emerged categories, patterns, and topics, which then become coding categories or

units (Bogdan & Biklen, 2002). This approach helps researchers reduce the amount of data and

organize them by categories and topics, making them much more manageable and retrievable.

Maxwell (2005) argues that the main categorizing strategy is coding, which he divides

into three distinctive categories: organizational, substantive, and theoretical. Organizational

categories serve as bins to sort data into several separate broad areas or issues. Substantive

categories are descriptive and often include informants’ concepts and beliefs. Substantive

categories can thus, in a sense, be considered “emic,” which is believed to be the perspectives of

participants. However, in reality many of them are not because they are inevitably shaped by the

researcher’s perspective and approach to the case, events, and people being studied (Maxwell,

2005). Theoretical categories help sort data into a more general or abstract framework and can be

derived from an existing theory or from a new theory inductively developed during data analysis

(Maxwell, 2005). Theoretical categories represent the researcher’s concepts rather than the
 99

informant’s concepts. Therefore, this type of category is the most “etic” one, based on the

researcher’s observations and, thus, perspectives (Maxwell, 2005). The researcher must

eventually find relationships among the categories in order to write a coherent report and build

theory. Maxwell’s three types of categories, organizational, substantive, and theoretical, describe

my coding system well. Organizational categories became chapters and titles of subsections in

my dissertation while substantive and theoretical categories were interwoven into each section in

order to describe, explain, and interpret in a thematic manner what I had collected, observed, and

experienced.

Karen Keifer-Boyd (in press) describes data analysis as a layered process that involves

four interconnected steps, which enables researchers to visit the raw data multiple times. The

first step is to do initial coding based on research questions and a theoretical lens. The second

step is to write about emerging codes, catalogues, patterns, and metaphors in prose (Keifer-Boyd,

in press). The third layer involves finding larger themes or metaphors that subsume initial

categories and coding units (Keifer-Boyd, in press). In the third step, more elaborate

interpretations and analysis are built supported by theories and examples (Keifer-Boyd, in press).

The last layer is to reveal and support arguments and results of the study in order to include what

has been known, valued, and interpreted based on research questions (Keifer-Boyd, in press). I

incorporated the layered data analysis strategy in order to visit my data multiple times and add

depth to my analysis and interpretations. This is also a method of triangulation, allowing multiple

angles of data analysis and reducing interpretation mistakes and errors.

After the completion of data collection and preliminary analysis on site, more substantial

data analysis process started by reducing the amount of data based on emerging themes and

patterns and research questions. As Bogdan and Biklen and Maxwell suggested, I read and
 100

examined interview transcripts, recorded observations, and my research journal many times until

I was able to discern emerging categories, themes, and patters. My approach to coding and

analyzing interview transcripts was exhaustive and holistic. After I reduced the data and

constructed my overarching categories and subcategories, which is the first layer of Keifer-

Boyd’s strategy, I created a visual matrix of organizational, substantive, and theoretical

categories as described by Maxwell (2005). The top row of the matrix included several large

themes, and summaries and sub-categories were located under the larger themes. For example, I

located communication system, community perception, museum building, work culture,

organizational structure, programs and exhibitions, and others on the top row of the matrix as the

organizational categories, which served as organizing bins. Substantive and theoretical categories

were located under organizational categories. For instance, the elitist perception about the

museum that was described by many participants is a substantive category and was located under

community perception, an organizational category.

Based on the matrix, I went back and read the data again, displaying more summarized

and relevant data using structured summaries (e.g., bullet points), synopses, vignettes, and tables

forming preliminary chapters and subsections, which is the second step of the layered data

analysis strategy. Displayed rough data with categories and sub-categories became the very first

draft of my dissertation, which was no more than reduced raw data. Theoretical categories

described by Maxwell emerged when I analyzed the reduced and displayed data using the matrix.

For example, I identified the museum’s quality as a leading visual arts educational organization

and its diverse outreach programs as an active element of the community even though there were

challenges in reaching out to diverse community members in River City. I created the following

theoretical categories: 1) effective and relevant museum qualities and programs and 2)
 101

challenges of the museum. This process is closely related to the third step of the layered data

analysis. At this point, I started to form more elaborate patterns, interpretations, and arguments

that were closely related to research questions and to the theoretical approach of my

methodology. The next step was to identify meanings and draw conclusions, the fourth step of

the layered data analysis. In other words, I re-analyzed my reduced and displayed data to achieve

a more cohesive explanation and tight argument demonstrated by evidence, examples, and

existing literature. I color-coded this preliminary written report and shifted elements around to

make the material textually and visually clearer and more coherent. I reworked the material until

I was satisfied that the data, descriptions, and arguments were represented as clearly as possible.

Because I closely followed Huberman and Miles’ three interrelated processes in data analysis,

Maxwell’s coding system, and Keifer-Boyd’s layered data analysis, my data analysis exercise

became controllable and efficient, which led to a more successful final report. However, data

analysis and interpretation is a complex and messy process and did not end until I had the final

written report. Through the process of writing, revising, and editing, I continued to make changes

in my interpretation and conclusions of the study.

Limitations of the Methods

I recognize a number of limitations of my research methods and the study in general.

First of all, as a human being, I have biases and cannot be free of assumptions, which is

described in Chapter One under the Assumptions and Limitations section. I look at things

through my own lens to understand the Avery and analyze the collected data. Although I was as

open as possible, no researcher can accurately and comprehensively represent the voice and

perspective of every participant. There could be many different versions of what was happening

at the Avery during those three months and my interpretation is just one of them. In other words,
 102

there is not one story that is absolutely true, although I did my best to be as objective and

thorough as possible.

I was concerned about how open museum staff members would be to an outsider they

had never met before the commencement of the study. While most Avery staff members seemed

to be open to me, the staff may have answered questions or behaved in ways that differ from

usual in order to present a certain image. Related to this is the need for time to build the quality

of relationship that allows more openness. In order for the staff to feel fully comfortable around

me, it may have taken more time. Yet, I had a limited amount of time to conduct the study. In

addition, because I was an outsider to the museum and its community, I confronted something

unique to the region that took me a while to understand: Midwestern mediocrity, which is

explained in Chapter Four. Perhaps this delayed understanding was an indication that I was

looking at the phenomenon with fresh eyes. In addition, there certainly were limited spaces

where I was not allowed. For example, I was not allowed to attend the museum’s executive

board meeting, although I was allowed to sit in on other types of board meetings. This reduced

the opportunity to see how some of the executive and financial decisions were made and

negotiated.

The duration of the study could be a limitation as well. I felt that three months was

sufficient to complete a single comprehensive set of interviews and observations and understand

the Avery’s organizational and communication systems, work culture, and its interactions with

the community. However, three months is a relatively short period of time when seen from the

standpoint of traditional ethnographic research. My study is an ethnographic case study—its

intent is to study the organizational culture of a single institution as opposed to the large cultural

units (e.g., a tribe or village) that are often examined in the field of anthropology. I acknowledge
 103

that the quality and characteristics of my data would have been different if I had devoted a longer

time period to my research. My observations reflect, of course, the exhibitions, programs,

meetings, and policies that happened to be under development or on display during the summer

of 2011. However, in any research project, the desire for the broadest data set possible has to be

balanced with issues of feasibility and the researcher’s time constraints. I am satisfied that the

time allotted for this study was adequate to gain significant insights into the research questions

under investigation.

The study does not generalize, in the sense of quantitative research, since it deals

qualitatively with a specific museum in a unique community. Rather, as I described earlier in this

chapter, generalization can happen by readers who can interpret my study in different ways and

apply their understandings to the specific practices of their own unique situations. It was never

my intention to personally change the Avery through my research, especially since I do not have

the authority to do this. Rather, my intent was that my analysis could generate a number of

suggestions that staff members of the Avery and comparable institutions find helpful as they seek

ways to improve their practices in positive directions.

Another limitation of the study is that I was unable to interview everybody in the

community. I was able to interview all staff members except some board members and security

staff members. I was in contact with seven out of 21 board members and interviewed only two

out of six or seven security staff members. In addition, I did not talk to all visitors to the Avery. I

was able to interview 10 visitors. More importantly, I did not interact with non-visitors in the

community. I acknowledge that excluding these perspectives limits my understanding of the

community and why some people do not participate in the Avery’s exhibitions, programs, and
 104

activities. Extending the research to these untapped resources is a very promising area for future

research, which is discussed further in Chapter Eight.

Reflection

While I began with a solid sense of my initial research approach, design, and questions as

well as actively collecting data at the site, I found the need to revise my research design and

strategies along the way. For example, I frequently changed the wording of prepared interview

questions to make my speech more easily understood by participants. Also, while I originally

planned to record all staff meetings that I could attend, I quickly realized if there was one person

who did not agree to be recorded at the meeting then I could not do it at all. I learned to take

memos during staff meetings and other events and recorded emerging questions for one-on-one

interviews with the staff for later times.

Many qualitative research scholars and authors have argued that qualitative studies are

reflective, flexible, complicated, and inductive rather than fixed, linear, and conductive (Dyson

& Genishi, 2005; Maxwell, 2005; Stake, 1994). I found this to be the case as I discovered the

value of constantly revising my research design to refine my lens and thoughts within the context

of the case. I also found that interesting and unexpected concepts clearly emerged during the

process of data analysis. For example, although I had never considered these ideas in the

research design process, concepts of a Midwest mindset and culture became part of final written

report as part of understanding and describing the River City community. I also did not know

that the museum economically benefited the community through becoming a selling point and

cultural attraction for businesses and executive directors to move to River City and invest in the

area. These emerging concepts as well as data analysis and interpretations are discussed in detail

in Chapters Four through Eight.

 105

CHAPTER FOUR: THE RIVER CITY COMMUNITY

River City is located in the central region of the United States, which is approximately

800 miles from where I live in State College, Pennsylvania. It took me almost 13 hours to get

there by car. When I got close to River City, many cars suddenly filled the previously empty

highway. Three bridges above the Central River connect the different cities in River City, and it

turned out that one of them was being repaired. I used the East Bridge to cross the river to get to

Watertown, one of the cities in the River City area, where the Avery Art Museum is located. The

Central River was calm and dark blue. It crosses in the middle of the River City metropolitan

area and forms the border between two Midwestern states. When I drove through the Watertown

downtown area to get to the house where I was about to live for three months, I noticed that

some of the storefronts were empty and the roads did not seem to be well maintained. A large

four-lane one-way road did not have visible lines to demarcate the lanes. When I arrived in the

neighborhood where I had rented a room, it was very quiet. The neighborhood is mainly

residential and enclosed by two main one-way streets that run to the north and south,

respectively. It is about 10 blocks north from the downtown area and up on a hill. The

neighborhood was somewhat rundown—houses and streets were in disrepair. I learned from my

landlord that the neighborhood is mostly occupied by middle-income families and college

students who attend a well-known chiropractic college located adjacent to the neighborhood.

The next day, Sunday, I decided to walk to the Avery Art Museum and explore the city

on foot; it took me about 20 minutes to get to the downtown area. The walk was beautiful, and I

observed different styles of buildings and houses. I noted that there was no one else walking on

the street. On the way, I saw a high school on my right, which is located on the edge of the

chiropractic college campus. Right next to the high school, there was a large fenced field where I
 106

later saw high school students practicing sports, band practices, and other activities. I saw

college students and community members using the field as well. The main street I walked on

that Sunday connects my place to the waterfront. I was able to enjoy the river view as I walked

down the hill. The street also runs right through the center of the chiropractic college campus. I

saw college buildings and labs and some residential buildings, including traditional houses and

relatively taller apartment buildings (no more than six to seven stories tall). The houses and

buildings were old and slightly rough but evoked an old town charm. When I got closer to the

downtown area, I noticed an increase in the number of larger, taller buildings. The styles and

eras of the buildings were mixed, mostly ranging from 1890s to 1930s. Various architectural

styles, including Art Deco, Renaissance Revival, Chicago School,2 and International, are

represented in the downtown Watertown area.

It was around eleven o’clock in the morning when I arrived in the waterfront area. I did

not see a single person on the street and could not find a café that was open. All shops were

closed, and the downtown was empty. Later, I ran into a couple who were also looking for a

place to sit and eat but they could not help me because they were also visitors to River City. I

also saw a number of homeless people on the street. I later found out that there are two homeless

shelters in downtown Watertown. I grew up in the bustling city of Busan in South Korea where

shops are open on Sundays. Most South Korean metropolitan cities, especially Busan, include a

mix of residential, entertainment, and business centers. Therefore, downtown areas are busier on

weekends. In addition, State College, where I currently live, is a university town; its downtown

is pedestrian friendly, and stores and cafés are open on Sundays. Because of my background,

downtown Watertown seemed odd to me even though I have learned that many cities in the

2
Also known as Commercial style and mostly developed at the turn of 20 th century.
 107

United States have different zones for businesses and residences, and shops tend to close on

Sundays partly for religious reasons.

Figure 1. The river view from the Avery Art Museum.

I walked to the waterfront to see the Central River running through the heart of River

City. The river view was stunning (Figure 1). When I looked back at the city view with the river

behind me, I noticed a shiny rectangular green glass building looking down on the river. It was

the Avery Art Museum. I looked for an entrance to the Avery but could not find one easily. Since

I walked from the waterfront, I automatically thought the façade that faces the river would be

connected to the main entrance. There was a massive outside staircase (Figure 2) that led to the

second floor of the building but the doors were locked. Later I found out that the museum opens

at noon on Sunday and the main entrance for the general public is located on the opposite side of

the building, although people can use the back doors.

 108

Figure 2. The back façade of the Avery Art Museum.

The Avery building is distinctive and reminded me of a well-refined minimalist artwork.

A Renaissance Revival style stone building right next to the museum on the left side of the main

entrance creates a sharp contrast with the Avery’s look in terms of size, style, color, and

sensation. While the grey stone building, which is a bank, is taller and narrower, the Avery

building looks like two rectangular boxes stacked on top of the other. The top part is narrower

than the bottom, creating a visual and physical stability. The shape and surrounding environment

of the Avery reminded me of the Tate Modern (Figure 3) in London while the color, surface, and

concept of the Avery reminded me of the New Museum (Figure 4) in New York City. The Tate

Modern does not have a second rectangular box on top of the main building but it sits on the

bank of the Thames River looking down upon a water view. The New Museum building

resembles the color and concept of the Avery and creates a high visual contrast from the rest of

the neighborhood on Bowery Street.

 109

Figures 3 & 4. The Tate Modern and the New Museum.

The lack of information posted on the exterior of the Avery building allowed for a

cleaner, more minimalist aesthetic. However, I saw small advertising flags of programs and

exhibitions attached to light poles near the building and on nearby streets. I also noticed that

some public transit buses had advertising for the Avery on the sides and back. The museum

grounds include a plaza in front of the main entrance. The left half of the plaza is used as a

parking lot, with extra parking being made available in a lot shared with the bank next door. The

other half on the right side has two benches, trees, and a sculpture by Sol Lewitt, a minimalist

and conceptual artist. Lewitt’s sculpture is the shape of a tall grey rectangular box, and each side

has geometric shapes with patterns carved into the shapes. The Avery building is recessed from

the street approximately 200 feet. The total size of the plaza is approximately 38,000 square feet.

I opened this chapter with my first impression of River City and descriptions of the

Avery Art Museum. While these descriptions are based on my personal impression as an outsider

who had never been to River City prior to the research, I unfold more descriptions, perspectives,

and characteristics of the River City Community and the Avery Art Museum through multiple

interpretations and perspectives from my participants in Chapters Four and Five. Throughout

these chapters, I provide a deep description of the community and the museum and how they are

interconnected or disconnected. I paint a picture of the messy, holistic reality and culture of how
 110

a museum functions in complex relation to its community. There are a number of complex and

cultural relationships to be found through this research. In Chapters Four and Five, I describe the

museum and community as mutable entities that must transition and evolve in response to

changes in their environments.

Chapter Four focuses on the community. It provides a general sense and the unique

community culture where the museum is located and which it primarily serves. While I discuss

the community’s overall characteristics and culture, I mainly focus on its economy,

demographics, arts and culture, work relationships with other organizations, and education. In

doing so, I paint a portrait of the museum’s larger social, cultural background and potential

audiences.

The River City Community

River City is a metropolitan area that includes several cities and adjacent towns with a

total population under 400,000 with approximately 150,000 households. Some of the cities in the

region were founded in the early 1800s. River City is situated across two Midwestern states.

While four or five large cities mostly comprise the River City area, there are small towns and

cities that are also part of it. Some people consider the four surrounding counties to be included

in the area while others consider the area to end at the borders of four large cities. River City is

not an official district title but it is used ubiquitously in the area and even nationwide. According

to Michael, the director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau in River City, a manufacturing

marketing company started to use the name “River City Development Group” (personal

communication, August 3, 2011) to attract more businesses and factories to the area in the 1960s.

Since then, people have called the area River City. The area encompassed by the name has

grown over time, including more adjacent small communities. Therefore, the entire community
 111

is promoted as River City, a way to visualize somewhat separate diverse cities and towns as one

large interconnected metropolitan area.

The River City area was economically vibrant while the agriculture and manufacturing

industries boomed in the 1940s and 1950s but has experienced an economic downturn since

major companies and farming equipment manufacturers closed and moved to less expensive

areas in the 1970s and 1980s. The city is trying to revitalize the downtown area in order to have

more people live there and partake of the amenities. However, I hardly ran into any pedestrians

there, and it felt empty. For example, there are almost no grocery stores, pharmacies, or any

shopping areas that would attract people to downtown Watertown. Instead, people go shopping

at the mall, Walmart, or Target, which are located about 3 miles or more from the downtown

waterfront where the museum is located. This explained why I did not see a single person

downtown on weekends.

I often walked around the Watertown area in my spare time and noticed large, empty

mansions on the waterfront, evidence of the once economically booming City of Watertown.

According to Jason, the director of the Alternative Theater, who also grew up in the region,

“There was a heyday of Watertown. At one time, Watertown was this vibrant place where

commerce took place, and it was more like a big city. There was a trolley system that ran through

the downtown. There were all kinds of small stores and big stores, and it’s not like that now”

(personal communication, June 8, 2011). Likewise, in several downtown areas in River City,

many of the storefronts and buildings are empty and seem to have been abandoned for quite a

while.

The four main cities in the River City area are: East City, Middletown, Watertown, and

South City. East City is mainly residential while Watertown is a hub for businesses, cultural and
 112

non-profit organizations, and entertainment. Watertown has a casino (founded in the 1990s) on

the waterfront of the Central River. Watertown is also home to both the River City Chamber of

Commerce, which is located only a block from the Avery, and a large baseball stadium, located

less than 10 blocks from the museum. Other businesses and cultural organizations are scattered

throughout the four cities. For example, the Botanical Garden and Central Zoo are located in

Middletown, while the River City Arts Organization is in South City. I explain the details of the

arts and cultural institutions in the Arts and Culture section below. Middletown is an island city

enclosed by the Central River and located between Watertown and South City. The government

arsenal is located in Middletown, which has a number of cultural amenities such as the River

City Ballet, small theaters, and art galleries. It has welcomed a sizeable number of refugees and

immigrants who came to the United States for a better and safer life. Lastly, South City has its

own downtown and residential areas and is home to the headquarters for several large

manufacturing companies. It also has an international airport, sitting on approximately 2,500

acres of land, which is used by all members of River City and adjacent counties. Universities,

colleges, and community colleges are scattered throughout the four cities. While East City and

Watertown are located in one state, Middletown and South City are in the other.

The Avery Art Museum is located in Watertown, one of the largest cities in the River

City area. After the Avery became privatized in 2003 and moved to the current location in 2005,

the museum’s targeted service area expanded beyond Watertown to the greater River City area.

According to the museum’s American Association of Museums (AAM) accreditation self-study,

the museum provides educational and visual art experiences in 15 surrounding rural counties.
 113

Characteristics of River City

My participants described the River City community as family-oriented and very friendly

compared to other large cities, such as Chicago and New York City. It is often described as

politically and culturally conservative, and as such, not very open to other cultures and

perspectives. As evidence of this, I noticed that it was difficult to find a restaurant that served

cuisine from different cultures or special diet food such as vegetarian, vegan, or gluten-free.

People who are from the region tend to stay in the community or return after some schooling or

job experience to raise their families because of the strong sense of community and affordable

cost of living. According to the museum’s outreach coordinator, Emily, River City is changing to

include more diverse cultures and perspectives and become more community-oriented.

Therefore, in her opinion, the city needs more young people with new ideas to be part of the

change. She said the community welcomes the input of young people in important community

meetings and decision-making processes.

The entire River City area is small enough to get anywhere within 30 minutes and there is

almost no traffic except in the summer when the bridges of the Central River are under

restoration. However, it is large enough to have cultural and educational opportunities as well as

weekly activities for community members to enjoy. There are several bike paths and parks

around the Central River in all four cities where community members can exercise and spend

quality time with their families. Most people shop and hang out in River City’s two large

shopping malls located in Watertown and South City. The summer of 2011 was unusually hot in

the Midwest, which was one of the reasons many community members went to the malls rather

than spending time in downtown areas, waterfronts, or parks.

 114

The museum’s store manager, Julie, described River City as a “big little town” (personal

communication, July 13, 2011). Jillian, who is a museum committee member3 and from the

Washington, D. C., area, said, “It’s a collection of small cities or small towns, and maybe the

overall population sounds fairly big, but I still feel like it’s very small” (personal communication,

June 8, 2011). Residential areas are spreading to suburban areas making River City sprawling

and larger but not centralized.

The River City area has eight different public transit systems. For example, Watertown

has its own transit system called the Watertown City Bus while Middletown has the Middletown

Metro. These different systems are called River City transit as a whole and connected by the

Loop that connects all the sub-communities and cities of the River City area. Loop buses are

available every 30 minutes and cost $1 per ride. Water taxies are seasonally available. The public

transportation system is not very popular among community members because it is fairly easy to

get around the area in private motor vehicles. The perception of my participants was that public

buses are not convenient and do not come often enough. They explained that they can get to any

place in River City within 30 minutes by car while they may have to wait 30 minutes just to

board a bus. Some said that it is difficult to get to different sections of River City using public

transportation because River City has eight separate systems that are only connected by the

Loop. I also found the system to be inconvenient and tended to use my scooter to get to

interviews and arts and cultural events.

Economy

The major industries of River City traditionally have been manufacturing and farming.

Several heavy industry companies, including Alcoa, an aluminum producer, and John Deere, a

3
Committees are subsets of the museum board. They mainly consist of board members but several committees
include members from the community.
 115

farming equipment manufacturer, have offices in River City and are the largest employers in the

area. According to demographic data collected by the museum’s former intern and student of the

Museum Studies program,4 Sarah, who is also an associate professor in Communications at a

local university, heavy industry companies are the largest employers in the region, followed by

the government arsenal and the health care system. While the focus on heavy industry and

farming carries through to the present day, there have been some changes in the industrial and

economic structure of River City. The area is becoming more education-, service-, and tourism-

oriented, having a number of universities and colleges and major museums and arts organizations

as well as a casino and hotels. The director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau in River City,

Michael (personal communication, August 3, 2011), explained that because of the changes in the

main industries of River City, the community has had to diversify its economy, and workers have

had to be trained to work in education, arts, and other service industries.

Many community members and museum staff believe that there is almost no tourism in

the region and that the museum does not tend to attract visitors from other regions and countries.

However, Michael, the director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, tells a different story. He

acknowledged that most community members do not understand or appreciate tourism.

However, based on data from the US Travel Association in 2009, he explained, the region gets

about a million visitors a year and they spent about $654 million in River City and adjacent areas

in 2009. River City employs the full-time equivalent of 7,700 people in tourism and service

businesses, and has 5,400 hotel rooms, a casino, and other tourist attractions. He remarked, “If

we don’t have tourism, then why do we have all this stuff? Why would we need any hotel rooms

if we didn’t have a tourism industry? Why would we have the casino, which can’t function on

just what River City residents gamble? The Avery can’t stay open just based on locals” (Michael,
4
The Avery Art Museum is affiliated with a local university’s Museum Studies program.
 116

personal communication, August 3, 2011). He argued that hotels and other tourism-related

services are economic engines like large farming equipment companies and factories.

While some people see the economy of the area as slow, Michael feels optimistic about

the present and future of the River City economy. He said, “It’s being reinvented, being more

lively than it was 25 years ago. They revitalized the downtown areas, remodeling old warehouses

and business buildings into condos and apartments, trying to attract people to live in the

downtown area” (Michael, personal communication, August 3, 2011). Since the 1990s, the River

City community has been trying to revitalize all downtown areas. Moving the Avery into the

middle of downtown to be close to other cultural amenities and businesses was part of the

Watertown downtown revitalization project. According to local and national media, the

revitalization project has been successful, and its economy is booming again. River City has an

unemployment rate that is lower than the country’s average, and more new jobs are created every

year.

Demographics

The ethnic composition in River City is fairly homogenous: 80% White, 7% African

American, 5% Hispanic/Latino/Latina, and 2% Asian. Many participants told me that River City

is diverse for the Midwest in terms of ethnicities and cultures, but they also added that the

Midwest region as a whole is not very diverse. River City is more diverse in educational levels,

socioeconomic status, age, professions, and life and leisure styles compared to its ethnic and

racial composition but still quite homogeneous. About 20% of the population has a bachelor’s

degree or higher. Approximately 40% of the population works in the manufacturing industry.

While education and service industries are currently being developed and becoming popular,

heavy and farming industries still contribute the most to the community’s economy. There is a
 117

significant farming community in the surrounding area as well. Therefore, all my participants

considered River City a blue-collar community. According to the demographic data collected by

Sarah, a former student of the Museum Studies program and associate professor in

Communication, in 2010, the median household income was about $46,000 and more than 45%

of the households earned over $50,000. Like many other cities in the United States, the

population is becoming older; more than 40% of the population is 45 years old and older. Sarah’s

data shows that the median age is approximately 40 and one third of the population is between

the ages of 25 and 44. While there is concern about brain drain, the community has a fair amount

of young and emerging professionals who are between 35 and 54 years of age.

While some see that the community has changed a lot in the last few years and has more

diverse cultures than in the 1960s and 70s, the River City region is noticeably divided

geographically by socio-economic status and ethnic groups. These different groups do not tend to

migrate from one place to the other even though they are very close to each other. Most people

use their personal motor vehicles to pass through different communities to get to main shopping

areas or to go to work. For some people who do not own a personal vehicle, the Central River is

an obstacle to travel. Many participants were able to draw lines between sub-communities that

are separated based on their ethnic and economic similarities and differences. My landlord went

so far as to circle an area on the map that I should not enter due to danger associated with gangs

and drug dealers.

One area of River City, which is distinguished by its ethnic and economic make-up, is

Middletown. This city is highly populated by immigrants and refugees from other countries who

tend not to regularly spend time in other areas of River City. Many community members have

recognized the dysfunction of immigrant isolation and are seeking to remedy the situation. For
 118

example, one initiative, which began in 2010, brings together like-minded people from the City

of Middletown, churches, and colleges to generate ideas about how to facilitate the transition of

refugees and immigrants on a policy level. This group of people had created several study

circles, comprised of approximately 130 community members, immigrants, and refugees from

Middletown and the greater River City area. Each study group had created a list of proposals to

address refugee and immigrant challenges for five weeks prior to the final assembly meeting.

The purpose of the final meeting I attended was for participants to share what they have

developed, select the most promising ideas, and find ways to apply them through public policy

changes. Using translators, immigrants and refugees from various countries were also invited to

share stories of the difficulties they have faced in trying to establish themselves in the area.

Language, housing, and transportation issues were frequently cited as barriers to greater

integration and upward mobility. Being an observer of this valuable event was a very touching

and emotional experience. While my status as a green card holder is nowhere close to what most

immigrants and refugees experience, I was able to feel the difficulties and fear of foreigners in

the United States as I often experienced similar difficulties in my first several years in this

country.

In contrast to the areas with heavy immigrant populations, East City is an area known for

its mostly White, economically comfortable residents.

Arts and Culture

As the economy is shifting to one that values education, service, and tourism, the River

City area has seen a great increase in the number and size of arts and cultural institutions and

venues throughout its different cities. Some organizations were established almost a hundred

years ago while many are only a couple of decades old or younger. For example, all four cities of
 119

the River City region have their own public libraries established in the early to late 1800s. The

Science Museum, located in Watertown, was founded in the late 1870s, and is one of the oldest

museums in the cities developed near the Central River. Later, this museum added an IMAX

theater that is popular among families and children. The Science Museum is located on a hill two

miles northwest of the Avery. The Historical House Museum consists of two buildings that were

built in the 1870s and 1890s respectively and is located in South City. The House Museum is

affiliated with the Avery through one educational outreach program.

The River City Symphony, founded in the late 1920s, now performs more than 50 times a

year in different venues across River City. According to participants, the symphony is very

popular among community members and has been successful in making community members

feel welcome at classical music performances without giving the impression of elitism or high

culture. It also offers youth and family programs. The symphony is based in Watertown but

performs in theaters, hotels, and parks in all four cities.

The River City Theater is another institution that has been in the community for about

100 years. The theater was established in the 1930s and has been remodeled several times. It was

recently expanded to accommodate more people and performances and was reopened in the late

2000s. The symphony often performs at the River City Theater.

Younger and more recent arts and cultural institutions include: the Central Zoo

(Middletown, late 1960s), the River City Arts Organization (South City, 1970), the River City

Ballet (Middletown, late 1990s), the Botanical Garden (Middletown, late 1990s), the Children’s

Museum (East City, 1995), the Music Experience Center (Watertown, 2004), the Midwest Fine

Arts Organization (Middletown, 2004), the Artstown Center (Watertown, 2005)—a component

of the Midwest Fine Arts Organization—and the Alternative Theater (Watertown, 2010). Four of
 120

the museums in the area (the Avery Art Museum, the Children’s Museum, the Science Museum,

and the Central Zoo) are accredited by the American Association of Museums and the American

Zoological Association. As the founding dates show, these organizations were established during

and after large heavy industry companies and factories moved out of River City and are,

therefore, related to the efforts to diversify and revitalize the region’s economy.

River City offers a variety of arts and cultural festivals throughout the year. While

downtown areas are not usually vibrant on a day-to-day basis, they do become alive with people

from River City and the surrounding regions, when arts and cultural festivals take place. The

Watertown downtown is the most popular spot for festivals because of its arts and cultural

amenities such as the Avery, the Music Experience Center, the Artstown Center, the casino, and

many hotels. Many arts festival exhibitors use the Avery’s plaza as a space to set up booths. The

Avery also participates through outdoor art-making activities and offering free admission during

festivals. River City also offers a number of festivals related to cultural origins, such as Greek,

Irish, and Jewish festivals. Music festivals in a variety of genres are especially popular, including

classical, jazz, blues, and pop music. The River City Symphony is often involved with these

music festivals. Music festivals offer concerts all around town, such as in parks, churches, hotels,

and museums. River City also offers a fireworks party on the Fourth of July every year, and a

unique fest that combines a marathon with music and visual art. Amateur and professional

runners from all over the nation and world come to participate in this marathon fest. River City is

in the center of the race route and features other arts activities for participants and community

members to enjoy.

According to my participants, the festivals and music venues seem to increase every year.

A local art teacher who grew up in River City said that sometimes he cannot believe how much
 121

improvement there is in terms of opportunities and things to do on the weekends with the arts. I

was surprised to see downtown Watertown full of people during these festivals. When I was in

River City, I was able to attend two festivals. For both occasions, I was amazed by the variety of

activities and programs and active participation from local community members and tourists.

According to my participants, the number of festivals and participants has grown significantly

over the past two or three decades. This trend is also closely related to the economy shifting from

manufacturing to service. This increasing number of arts institutions and venues has created new

jobs and reoriented community members’ leisure choices and styles.

Working with Other Organizations

The Avery’s former director, Ken, was successful at instigating partnerships with local

cultural and educational institutions in the community. Since 2008, the museum has provided

space for local universities to use its studio and gallery spaces for classes. For example, a local

liberal arts college teaches its painting and drawing classes at the museum’s studio, which

provides a spacious place to make art that the college lacks. As part of this initiative, the

Midwestern University’s Museum Studies program has been affiliated with the Avery. Several

partnerships with other local colleges also gave free admission to students of the partnered

institutions. The Avery’s newly constructed spacious storages make it possible to store

collections from other universities and museums that do not have enough space to store them.

The museum has broadened its offerings by showing some of these collections as special

exhibitions.

The Avery provides an ideal practicum space for students in the Museum Studies

program at the Midwestern University. While the partnership between the museum and the

program has only been established for three years, the relationship is evolving. Considering that
 122

students in the program also help with the museum with their research and internships, their

relationship has turned out to be symbiotic. The director of the program, Tina, who also shares

office space with other Avery staff members, said that the museum and the Museum Studies

program keep inching towards an integrated partnership. The discussion of the Museum Studies

program continues in the next section. By keeping these partnerships with local colleges and

universities, the museum has been a hub for visual art resources in the community and adjacent

areas. Currently, the museum maintains partnerships with seven local universities and colleges.

The Avery maintains partnerships with some of the museums in the area. For example,

the Avery partners with three museums in River City—the Music Experience Center, the

Historical House Museum, and the Botanical Garden—to provide a set of interactive

presentations based on the participating museums’ educational programs. The Avery also

provided a small exhibit at the Watertown Public Library. This exhibit featured facsimiles of

animal etchings from the museum’s collection in the display case in the library’s common area.

It also had drawing and quiz activities for children near the display area. As well, the museum is

trying to accomplish partnerships with other arts organizations such as the River City Orchestra

and the River City Ballet. During my research at the museum in the summer of 2011, the

museum’s associate curator and other staff members had met with representatives from the

orchestra and ballet groups to discuss possible partnerships and collaboration in programming

and event planning. Some organizations are also connected to the Avery more indirectly. For

example, Emily, the outreach coordinator, is a member of the community-based arts education

support group, the Midwest Arts Education, comprised of art teachers, arts organization

directors, and other educators in the community. Through Emily, the members meet at the

museum where they make plans to use museum amenities and resources for future arts education
 123

projects and promotion. The Midwest Arts Education will be further explained in the next

section, Education.

The Avery has partnerships with regional businesses and international companies who

have local offices in River City. The museum has shown part of a heavy manufacturing

company’s corporate art collection, and the company sponsors the museum’s free family days,

other programs, and charity events. The company’s vice president is on the board at the Avery as

well. The Avery is also trying to connect to local charity and non-profit organizations, such as an

environmental group, a breast cancer awareness group, and a child hunger prevention group. For

example, the museum had a charity event at the lobby to pack food for children in Haiti, which is

further discussed in Chapter Six.

Education

The educational system or infrastructure can be considered a subset of the arts and

cultural scenery of the River City community as most arts and cultural institutions are

educational sites for life-long learning and exposure to new experiences. Almost all arts and

cultural organizations that I discussed in the previous section include education in their mission

statements or/and roles. For example, the River City Symphony and the Music Experience

Center emphasize music education while the Avery and the Artstown Center promote visual art

education through their exhibitions, programs, and hands-on art-making workshops.

In this section, I focus on the public school and higher education systems. River City has

seven different public school districts that serve suburban areas as well. For example, Watertown

has its own public school district, called the Watertown Community School District, which

includes 30 high, middle, and elementary schools. Many of my participants asserted that the

public education system in River City is very good in terms of test scores and literacy levels.
 124

According to the study conducted by a professional research firm for a local health care

company, the community has higher ratings of public schools, better graduation and dropout

rates, and a better literacy rate compared to the national average. According to the River City

Times, however, studies show that approximately three students drop out of school in River City

every school day. It is also estimated that more than 500 students in the area drop out annually.

Several local public schools’ report cards show that evaluation is based on certain

subjects such as reading, mathematics, and science. Some public school teachers whom I

interviewed stated that the public school education in River City is not balanced because it

focuses only on subjects that are tested and compared state and nationwide. For example, some

of the elementary schools in at least one school district do not offer any visual art classes. While

other school districts offer visual art programs, they are not valued as much as the tested

subjects. According to several school improvement plans of public schools in Watertown, the

emphasis and value of visual art education comes after writing/reading, mathematics, science,

history, and physics; these priorities are historically linked to farming and heavy manufacturing

being at the heart of the community’s economy.

The participant teachers also said that the public school curricula do not develop

creativity and encourage critical thinking, which are, as scholars document, achieved through

arts programs (Gullatt, 2007; Sternberg, 2006). According to a retired schoolteacher and museum

volunteer, Tom, parents in the community school districts will raise money to protect athletic

programs when the schools try to cut funding for the programs, but they do not act to recover arts

programs. This demonstrates that many community members do not think that arts programs are

essential in public school curricula. Stereotypically, arts have been considered something that is

extra and that does not need to be taught to all people (Day, 1998; Perrin, 1994). If considering
 125

the fact that these parents and school children are potential Avery visitors, there is a certain

population that does not tend to value visual art and therefore would not visit the Avery for

visual art experiences, the basis for most museum programs and exhibitions. Lack of arts

education leads to a lack of cultural capital that provides a background for understanding and

enjoying so-called high culture (Bourdieu, 1984). I develop this concept of cultural capital in

greater detail in Chapter Six.

To counteract these shortcomings, provide more balanced educational experiences for

children in the region, and emphasize the importance of arts education, like-minded educators in

the community have organized a group called the Midwest Arts Education that promotes arts

education and programs in the community. I was invited to attend their regular meetings and

attended three of them while I was in River City. The group had a nice mix of people: young,

old, experienced, and professional. The organization is supported by a statewide, non-profit

organization for arts education as well as a number of grants. Its members include not only art

teachers but also school principals, school board members, community leaders, gym teachers,

music teachers, museum educators, and arts organization leaders. The leader of the group, who is

the executive director of the statewide, non-profit institution for arts education, mentioned during

one of the meetings that, in schools, math and science related subjects tend to be treated as

important but not arts. She believes in changing this view because as all disciplines are equally

important. Her stance parallels that of Day (1998) and Perrin (1994). Because of the inequality

with which subjects are valued in public schools, the group strives to offer seminars and

workshops for local teachers to promote integrative arts lessons and programs. Each member

advocates for arts education in his or her own institutions and schools and tries to implement

relevant curricula in the River City educational system. The group has also developed a
 126

community-wide theater performance about environmentalism that involves a variety of arts

disciplines, such as visual art, music, dance, and literature.

River City is home to more than 10 community colleges, four-year colleges, and

universities that serve about 35,000 students in the area and from other regions. A handful of

these schools offer programs that are related to visual art and art education, arts and cultural

organization management and development, and service and hospitality management.

Three universities and colleges in the area offer degree programs in visual studio art

(BFA), design (including computer graphics), and art education. Three schools, including one

community college, have entertainment and hospitality management programs including

recreation, park, and tourism administration. The Midwestern University, which is located in

South City, offers degree programs in Museum Studies and Sports Management, respectively.

The university’s Museum Studies program has been affiliated with the Avery since 2008. Most

classes take place in the museum’s board meeting room and studios, and the students in the

program have internships and manage various hands-on projects in collaboration with museum

staff members. Several senior-level museum staff members have taught courses over the past

three years.

While these programs are exemplary, the area’s goals to expand service, tourism, and

education mean that River City needs more educational programs for people who desire to work

in those areas. A local professor, Dave, who teaches Parks and Recreation Services, suggested

that tourism, visitor services, and the hospitality industry require a special work outlook,

including perspectives and values associated with creativity and flexibility. Dave continued,

“Things like hospitality just don’t clock in and clock out like the manufacturing industry”

(personal communication, July 11, 2011). Many community members whom I interviewed
 127

reiterated this call for different educational approaches both in public schools and higher

education as well as in informal educational sites such as museums.

Perception of the Midwest

Several participants mentioned a concept of Midwest mediocrity, the attitude presumed to

be held by many Midwestern people, which can be summed up as a belief that we are okay with

the way things are. A number of participants said that people in the community, in general, do

not strive to excel and that they tend to blame others for any lack of achievement or success.

According to board member and former interim director, Deborah, “The community’s got

potential but it acts small. It acts and thinks of itself smaller than it really is, and we don’t

gravitate to the positive” (personal communication, July 16, 2011). Former museum director,

Ken, who had previously lived in major international cities like London and Paris, remarked, “I

think that the general public [in River City] doesn’t know what’s good for itself, if I can say that

in a very kind way. I think that there’s a belief that the lowest common denominator is sufficient,

and I think that there’s a belief that anything that’s challenging is not acceptable. I think people

don’t like change, and I think they don’t like new ideas” (personal communication, June 20,

2011).

One participant suggested that this perception of Midwest mediocrity may be driving

ambitious young people away from the community. Many reported the phenomenon of brain

drain in the area, noting that brilliant, young students often leave for large cities as soon as they

get their college degrees. It could be that young people from the community seek more creative

and flexible job opportunities than what they observe to be available in the River City area. River

City is still a working class dominant economy and has only recently started to diversify its

industries to include service and education. According to Richard Florida (2002), the working
 128

and service classes are paid to execute things according to prepared plans. Unlike working and

service classes, people in the creative class are more engaged in complex problem-solving using

independent judgment and a high level of human capital (Florida, 2002). Young people in River

City might leave town because they cannot find opportunities to use their individual creativity in

an area where the dominant industries are farming and heavy manufacturing. Along the same

lines, some community members said that arts organizations could help prevent this from

happening by providing a variety of creative cultural, leisure, and career opportunities for young

people. A local artist and professor, Roy, said that the Avery could be a starting point, although

even high school students who receive scholarships through the Avery to go to an art school

usually leave town as soon as they have the opportunity.

While the concept of Midwest mediocrity was frequently mentioned by participants who

have been part of the community for a long time, it could be an unfounded or even outdated

stereotype. It is also important to note that a more relaxed outlook often has very positive results,

such as greater mental health, and that it is both natural and beneficial for young people to

explore the world. In addition, even though many young people leave River City, they often

return after a period of exploration because of its high quality of life and relatively low cost of

living.

Discussion

The economy, demographics, arts and cultural offerings, educational opportunities, and

other characteristics of a community create its culture and its potential museum audiences. At the

same time, community members also influence the community’s economy, culture, and

educational scenes. For example, in River City, the farming and heavy industries have attracted

people who are equipped to work in the blue-collar sector and technology-related jobs. The
 129

influence of these industries can also be seen in the public school system where science and

mathematics are valued more highly than arts disciplines, especially visual arts. Several

participants recalled taking a vocational class when they were students in public school system,

which focused on metal and woodworking, intended to develop skills for manufacturing jobs.

The exclusion of arts programs in public schools is common and sometimes supported by

parents, especially when the parents themselves were not exposed to arts programs as children

(Day, 1998). This creates a cycle whereby children who were deprived of meaningful arts

experiences grow up and become the potential audience of the Avery, but they do not play an

active role in arts offerings, thereby leading their own children to be deprived of visual arts as

well (Falk & Dierking, 2000; National Endowment for the Arts, 2004). While there has been an

increase in the number of arts organizations in the community, visual art is still the least popular

art form among community members.

It is obvious that there is a gap in the visual art education of the public school system.

The Avery is one of the several informal educational sites that try to fill this gap in the cultural

and educational infrastructure of River City by advocating the importance of visual art

experiences and education.

In the next chapter, I describe the Avery as an integrated part of the community’s

economy, educational infrastructure, and art scenes, and how the museum coevolved with the

community.
 130

CHAPTER FIVE: THE AVERY ART MUSEUM

Two days after my arrival in River City in May 2011, I formally met with museum staff

members and took a tour of the museum led by the director of museum services, Carol. We had

communicated via email prior to my arrival about how to get to the museum and which entrance

I should use. That morning, I decided to walk to the museum to meet Carol at 9:00 a.m. I walked

down the main street that passes through the chiropractic college, a route that afforded a nice

view of downtown Watertown and the Central River. It was a sunny morning, and I saw the

sunshine reflecting on sparkling water framed by the beautiful blue sky and two old stone

buildings. When I arrived at the museum’s plaza, I saw the main double-sided glass door

entrance on the right and a smaller grey metal door on my left. From Carol’s email, I knew that

the grey door was the staff entrance that I needed to use.

Figure 5. First level floor plan of the Avery Art Museum.

When I got closer to the grey door, I noticed a communication station with a white

button. I recalled from Carol’s email that I needed to push the button in order to talk to security
 131

and gain access to the building. Soon after I communicated with a security staff member, the

door buzzed, and I pulled it open. The door led to the museum’s loading dock and to the security

booth enclosed by a glass door and windows. 5 The security staff member asked me to sign in on

a sheet and gave me an intern badge that enabled me to get in the building during business hours

and to any museum spaces except for the restricted areas such as collection storage and several

staff offices. Carol came down to meet with me a minute later. It was our first time meeting each

other in person. I immediately sensed her bright energy. She looked mature and professional,

wearing colorful business casual clothing—I remember that she had a bright yellow cardigan.

Carol gave me a tour of the museum. We used the door that connected the security booth

to the orientation gallery on the first floor. In the orientation gallery, there was a colorful glass

multi-sensory sculpture installation. Each glass sculpture looked like a corncob and there were

almost 30 of them hanging from the ceiling through black wires. The main colors used were

yellow, orange, red, and some purple. There was an image of a cornfield on three walls around

the installation, and a video of the artist explaining his art was playing in the right back corner. I

immediately connected the artwork to the local economy and landscape. Later, I heard from my

landlord that the installation work is his favorite because it is extremely relevant to local

audiences.

5
The loading dock and security booth are not shown in the first level floor plan in Figure 5, but they are located on
the right side. There is a secured door that connects the orientation gallery to the security booth and loading dock
area.
 132

Figure 6. Third and fourth level floor plans of the Avery Art Museum.

After viewing the installation piece, Carol and I took the elevator to the fourth floor.

Since it was a Monday and the museum was closed, all of the galleries were locked. She used her

badge to get into different gallery spaces. The galleries were very clean and sterile and had high

ceilings. Most of the walls were white but some sections had colored walls. The overall

exhibition design and style were traditionally inspired by the white cube approach explained in

the literature review chapter—paintings were installed on solid walls with accompanying

interpretive labels and panels. The museum, at the time, had two special exhibitions on the third

and fourth floors that were based on collections from a local liberal arts college and a farming

equipment manufacturing company (Figure 6), respectively. I thought that incorporating

collections from these local institutions was a great way to create and maintain partnerships and

to expand exhibition possibilities beyond the museum’s permanent collection. Between the third
 133

and fourth floors, there is a space where visitors can take a relaxing break from exploring the

galleries while taking in a lovely view of the Central River.

Figure 7. Second level floor plan of the Avery Art Museum.

Carol explained that the museum was storing a collection from a university that is about

70 miles from the Avery because that university’s museum was under construction. Part of the

university’s museum collection was on view on the second floor (Figure 7), and most of the

artwork featured in the show was European and American modernist art, including works by

Max Beckmann, Henri Matisse, Jackson Pollock, and Robert Motherwell. Another exhibition on

the second floor that drew my attention was the Haitian art show. The paintings in the show were

very colorful and different from the rest of the artwork in terms of color, style, and subject. The

figures and animals portrayed in the paintings have a child-like quality—for example, one

painting depicts a red horse with a pink mane that is sticking out his tongue, and most paintings

were not in realistic perspective. As part of the museum’s permanent collection, one gallery on

the second floor featured American Regionalist art. Featured artists included Grant Wood, John

Bloom, and Thomas Hart Benton. The rest of the exhibitions included Frank Lloyd Wright
 134

architecture and furniture, 20th century American paintings and decorative art, and Spanish Vice-

regal paintings. Carol showed me four art-making studios and a family activity center also

located on the second floor. The family activity center had a couple of tables and matching sets

of chairs, a bean-bag seating area, art materials, books, and boards shaped like refrigerator doors

where children can post the artwork they create in the room.

After the tour, Carol and I sat down in the museum’s café to take care of some

paperwork. The café is located on the first floor in the southwest corner of the building. When

sitting in the café, one can enjoy a pleasant view of the Central River through the large walls of

windows that envelop three sides of the café. The café area had some bold red walls with

traditional Haitian motifs similar to those that are found in other parts of the museum. The café

was bright and spotless with a number of white tables and cleanly designed metal chairs. Each

table had a small bottle that contained colorful, artificial flowers. Carol told me the café is

usually open for the public use but only serves food when there are rental services, such as

weddings and business meetings or on Thursday night when the museum is open until nine for

several programs, such as lectures, art talks, and live music performances. Visitors can relax in

the café, but during the majority of the time, the only refreshments that the museum offers are

coffee from a vending machine in the lobby and chilled bottled water from the museum store.

As we walked out to the lobby area, I was able to see the entire lobby space. Because I

had entered through the staff entrance, I had not previously seen the lobby, which is directly

connected to the main public entrance. The lobby area—approximately 3,600 square feet—

includes two supporting pillars. The floor is made of large shiny black tiles. A large black desk

covered almost the entire length of the wall on the south side. On top of the desk was a sign

directing visitors to purchase tickets from the museum store located in the northwest corner of
 135

the first floor. There was a seating area in the middle of the lobby that could accommodate about

10 people and a coat room with a number of lockers on the east side.

Carol and I walked up to the second floor where most of the administrative offices are

located. Right outside of the office door, we ran into Ed, the chief financial officer (CFO) and

acting director. He told me that he was glad to finally meet me in person. We had exchanged a

number of emails prior to my arrival. We entered into the office space, which was divided into

many cubicles where each staff member worked. There were also two separate closed offices on

the right side and one separate office on the left. The CFO, Ed, occupied one of the two offices

on the right side, and across from Ed’s office was the executive director’s office overlooking the

Central River. Since the museum was looking for a new director at the time, this office was

unoccupied. The curator of education, Mary Jane, was assigned to the office on the left side. On

the right side of Ed and the executive director’s offices, a board meeting room was located where

most staff and board meetings take place.

After showing me the office spaces, Carol took me to the library and showed me the

space I would use for the next three months to work and conduct interviews. The actual library

has not been open to the public since the museum moved to the current building in 2005. I was

assigned to use the common space where visitors are welcome to sit and look at magazines or

relax. This common area had a good size black table that could seat about 10 people and a coffee

table with art magazines. I used a small desk at one corner with a computer that was connected to

the museum’s server; Carol gave me a username and password. Having this space and access

made me feel that staff members had a great deal of trust in me despite that fact that they had just

met me. That feeling continued throughout and even after completing the data collection for this

study. However, I could not disconnect myself from the feeling that I was a stranger to the space.
 136

Staff members were very friendly and tried to make my visit as comfortable as possible. I

was able to comfortably and privately interview almost all staff members in my assigned space,

away from the distractions of the rest of the museum. During staff meetings, the CFO, Ed, and

the director of museum services, Carol, often encouraged other staff members to participate in

my research and to help me as much as possible. Most staff members were curious about my

study and shared their perspectives and honest opinions with me. I felt that the staff appreciated

hearing about my observations when I reported during meetings and at my final presentation.

However, several staff members were not sure about how they could contribute to my study and

expressed their feelings of being uncomfortable during interviews.

Having described my initial impression of the museum, I will now begin a deeper

description of the Avery by incorporating multiple voices and perspectives from participants.

These descriptions help readers understand the unique institutional culture of the Avery through

understanding its history, mission and goals, and governing and departmental structure. My

intent is to use the remainder of this chapter to portray a balanced picture of the Avery. I start

with the origin of the museum and how the museum came to be the current Avery Art Museum. I

then share how the museum’s mission, vision, and goals have taken shape. I also provide the

organizational structure of the museum in order to discuss the governing authority, which

includes the director, board members, and various committees, and the roles and relationships of

each department and staff member.

History and Overview of the Museum

What is now known as the Avery Art Museum was originally established as the

Watertown Municipal Art Gallery in 1925, which was developed from the Watertown Art

Association established in the late 1800s. The funding source to build the Art Gallery is
 137

unknown but according to one informant, it would have come from the City of Watertown. The

Watertown Municipal Art Gallery was located in a remodeled armory building downtown from

1925 until the early 1960s when it moved to a newer and larger facility situated next to the

Science Museum, thus forming a small museum campus. The Art Gallery was accredited by the

American Association of Museums (AAM) in 1983 and changed its name to the Watertown

Museum of Art in recognition of its professional standing. In the late 1990s, as part of the

downtown Watertown revitalization project, the board of directors and the City of Watertown

felt the need to expand the municipal art museum to serve more people and offer more programs

and exhibitions. The Avery Charitable Foundation, established by a local family with money

mostly earned from the banking business, donated about 13 of the more than 45 million dollars

necessary to complete construction. About 20 million dollars came from public funding,

including the City of Watertown, and the rest was subsidized by a capital fundraising campaign.

The museum was named after the Avery Foundation, which had made the single largest

private donation. Those responsible considered using the name the Avery Art Center instead of

the Avery Art Museum to convey to patrons and visitors a more community-oriented emphasis.

However, this name was ruled out because deciders felt that the term ‘art museum’ would sound

more credible and impressive. The thinking was that potential traditional museum donors would

be more willing to write a large check to a “museum” than to a “center.” It was also discussed

that being a museum as opposed to a center would be necessary for establishing the Avery’s

prestige in the art world.

In 2003, the museum finally became the Avery Art Museum, a private museum with a

501(c)(3) status, and in 2005, it moved to its new building in downtown Watertown. The

museum currently sits two miles east and down a hill from its original location. To facilitate the
 138

transition from a municipal art museum to a private non-profit institution, the City of Watertown

promised the museum 30% budgetary support (a monthly subsidy of $65,000), which is

supposed to end or be reassessed in the year 2024. However, the city is not involved with the

museum management. In the summer of 2011, the museum had 16 full-time staff members, 5

part-time visitor services staff members, and approximately 300 volunteers, docents, and interns.

It had about 1,200 museum members. Details about staff member composition follow in the

Governing Authority, Department, and Staff Structure section below.

The Avery’s founding history is somewhat different from the history of United States art

museums discussed in the first section of the literature review chapter. The Avery was

established as a municipal art gallery intended to serve the general public rather than to protect

and separate elite art and culture from popular culture, the founding purpose of most United

States art museums. Perhaps, the gallery was meant to show the power and wealth of the City of

Watertown. Even though the Avery changed its mission from more traditional, collection focus

to a more education-oriented approach in 2006, the museum was privatized in 2003 with the help

of one family that has been known for its wealth and social status in the community for

generations. Despite the effort of the Avery to be more community-oriented, community

members have felt that the museum does not belong to the community. The name of the museum

represents the identity of the museum, and it is difficult for community members to see the

Avery as a community-learning site when the name of the museum associates it with the wealth

and elitism of the region. Some people may feel that the museum represents the wealth and

power of the Avery family not that of the community since it became privatized and obtained a

new contemporary-looking building.

 139

Although the physical size of the building is quite large, approximately 120,000 square

feet that includes 10 galleries, the relatively small number of staff members and the annual

operating budget of two million dollars qualify the Avery as a small- to medium-sized museum.

The museum endowment is worth approximately five million dollars. About 20% of the

operating budget comes through admission revenues, memberships, store sales, and facility

rentals, with the rest coming from fundraising. The education budget is about $60,000 to

$70,000, and the curatorial budget is less than $100,000. Approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people

visit the museum each year. In 2009, the AAM reaccredited the museum. After the museum was

privatized, an admission charge was applied. The current rates are: $7 for an adult, $6 for

seniors/students/educators, and $4 for youth 12 and younger. The museum is open to the public

for 2,392 hours a year. It is closed on Mondays and national holidays, including Thanksgiving,

Christmas, and New Year’s Day.

The Avery’s collection, which has been rather randomly established through gifts and

donations from local elites and philanthropies since the museum’s founding, includes American,

European, Haitian, Mexican Colonial, and Asian art. A well-known lawyer and former mayor

who traveled all over the world and brought art to Watertown donated the first piece to the

collection. His collection mainly consisted of American, Northern European, and Mexican

Colonial art. In the 1960s, a renowned local doctor donated a substantial Haitian art collection to

the museum. The time period represented across the Avery collection spans from the 16th century

to the present.

According to interview data, many staff and community members feel that the diversity

of the collection could be a weakness. On one hand, many would like to see a greater focus on

American Regionalist and Midwestern art, which is considered the most relevant art in the
 140

Midwest and among community members in River City. Many take pride in the depth and

number of Regionalist works of art in the collection at the Avery. On the other hand, several

local artists and art professors said that they would like to see the museum collecting

contemporary art since it is relatively inexpensive to collect compared to older European art,

which is what the museum’s associate curator was pursuing for purchase in the summer of 2011.

Another reason that some local artists favor contemporary art is that they feel it would be more

suitable to the ambience of the new building and galleries than the current collection. However,

contemporary art is certainly not universally valued among the community. For example, the

contemporary, minimalist look of the building is unappealing to many members of the general

public in the region and makes some feel uncomfortable about entering the museum space. The

contemporary look of the building is further discussed in Chapter Six.

According to the Avery Art Museum Acquisition Policy adopted in April 2011, the

museum plans to build and strengthen the museum’s existing permanent collection through

acquisition by gift, bequest, transfer, or purchase of works of art. The six main collecting areas

are: 16th through 19th century European; 17th through 19th century Mexican Colonial; 18 th to

contemporary American; mid-20th century to contemporary Haitian; American Regionalist; 19th

and 20th century American Design and Decorative Art. While the museum has a written

acquisition policy, at one meeting I observed, members of the acquisition and exhibition

committee did not seem to agree on what to purchase to strengthen the museum’s collection.

While the museum’s associate curator, Enrika, and the registrar, Ted, wanted to purchase two

16th century European paintings which became available for purchase in New York City, several

board members and committee members did not approve of the purchase. The purchase plan was

not approved at the meeting.

 141

Because the museum did not adhere to a clear strategy in its initial acquisition process, it

continues to struggle to establish a coherent acquisition policy and a collection that can be

embraced by the community. The museum’s collection that was developed by its community

members over time since its founding in 1925 currently includes approximately 4,000 works of

art. Therefore, the museum cannot easily change its collection right now even if some works are

not very popular among community members. Some argue that most of the Avery’s collection is

not culturally relevant to the local community and that is why some people do not come to see it.

However, it is important to note that a piece of art can be interpreted in many different ways by

many different types of people, not only those who feel culturally related to it. Many have

discovered favorite works of art from well outside their range of cultural experience. In fact, Falk

(2009) interestingly notes that people are generally not automatically attracted to exhibitions and

programs that are related to their big “I” identities such as ethnic, cultural, or gender identities.

Rather, museum visitors tend to be attracted to exhibitions and programs that resonate with their

little “i” identities—meaning those that “respond to the needs and realities of the specific

moment and situation” (Falk, 2009, p. 73). The cultural diversity of the art in the collection need

not be a barrier to increased visitorship.

Mission, Vision, and Goals

According to the museum’s website, the mission of the museum is to serve the public by

promoting appreciation and creation of visual art through education and by collecting,

conserving, and exhibiting art. The mission statement also refers to the importance of the

museum in serving as a vital and responsive institution that brings art and people together and

benefits the life of the community through the power of art. It is this version revised in 2006 that

emphasizes education first and collecting, conserving, and exhibiting art second. The revision
 142

process, which led to the current version, involved local leaders and educators in order to ensure

that local voices would be represented. For example, a local English Literature professor

participated in drafting the revised statement. The board of directors offered the final approval.

While the museum does not have a vision statement available for public view, the

museum’s former director, Ken, composed written strategic plans and a vision statement to

satisfy AAM accreditation requirements. According to the museum’s Institutional Plan (see

Appendix B), approved by the board of directors in December 2007, the vision of the museum

conveys the following: the Avery Art Museum aims to be a museum with a nationally

recognized art collection within six years, and to be the premier school of art and art history in

the River City region within six years. By that date (i.e., after 2013), the museum aims to be

financially stable, with an endowment of at least $20 million. While the vision formulated by

Ken includes ambitious and precise plans, it functions more as a statement of six-year goals than

as a vision statement. He actually repeats these goals as principle objectives in the museum’s

AAM accreditation self-study.

According to John W. Graham and Wendy C. Havlick (1994), the mission and vision

statements of organizations in general are very similar in terms of content and purpose in that

they describe organizational service, the market, and the means for delivering the service in a

way that “reflects the value and priorities of the strategic decision makers” (p. viii). However, P.

J. Smit (1999) differentiates mission from vision. According to Smit (1999), while the mission

statement conveys “an organization’s character, identity and reason for existence” (p. 128) in the

present, vision usually refers to a future state that is better than the current state. Seltzer (2001)

describes that the vision statement expresses the organization’s optimal goal, defining the

essence of the organization’s beliefs and values while mission describes ways to get to that
 143

optimal goal through identifying service areas, target audience, values, and goals. In Smit and

Seltzer’s views, a vision statement is broader than a mission statement and more closely related

to the long-term aspirations of the institution. The Smithsonian’s mission and vision statements

are excellent examples of this distinction. While the mission statement, “The increase and

diffusion of knowledge,” (n.p.) succinctly communicates the institution’s current function, the

vision statement, “Shaping the future by preserving our heritage, discovering new knowledge,

and sharing our resources with the world” (Smithsonian, n.p.), is broader and explicitly looks

forward in time. The Avery’s vision statement is lacking in that it fails to communicate the type

of broad timeless goals that characterize a vision. Instead, it puts forth specific goals that will

need to be reset in a particular timeframe. There is nothing in the museum’s written goals and

strategic plans that satisfy the transcendent, more expansive definition of a vision statement

offered by Smit and Seltzer.

The sentiment among a large portion of the staff was that Ken’s vision was not clearly

articulated or properly disseminated and that it was overly ambitious. Therefore, when Ken left

the organization in November 2010, his vision and strategic plans became invalid and have not

been replaced. Staff members felt that Ken’s vision and strategic plans did not represent a

collective vision that all staff members agree on. According to Jillian, a committee member, the

problem is that the museum is trying to be something for everybody. Statements from other staff

members indicate a general agreement that the museum aims to cater to community members

and maintain local relevance but lacks the leadership to establish how this can be achieved.

Discussion of the Avery’s leadership follows in the next section.

 144

Governing Authority and Department/Staff Structure

The museum’s original organizational chart, which is slightly modified in Figure 8,

shows the governing structure, including the staff and departmental organization. As a governing

body, the museum has a twenty-one-person board, committees (which are not shown in the

chart), and the executive director. The board works with the executive director or interim director

to make executive decisions and create strategic plans. The director or interim director serves as

a liaison between the board and staff. Currently, the interim director and CFO, Ed, supervises all

staff members and oversees financial, operational, and human resources management. Ed was

hired shortly after the museum opened its new facility downtown in 2005. He holds a BA in

Business and Accounting from a local college. His professional background is in finance and

accounting, and he worked in major corporations in the area before attaining his positions at the

Avery. When the Avery was privatized, it had to recruit a CFO, a position previously filled by

the City of Watertown.

The director reports to the board. The head of each department reports to the director and

occasionally works with board and committee members. The security department and catering

services are provided by local companies that contract with the museum and are overseen by the

director of museum services, Carol, who reports to the director.

 145

Board of Directors

Interim Director
(Ed) CFO/Deputy Director of Operations
(Ed)

Senior Registrar Curator of Director of Facilities Museum Admin. Director of

Curator (Ted) Education Development Manager Store Manager Assistant Museum Services
(Mary Jane) (Reta) (Bill) (Julie) (Karen) (Carol)
Associate
Preparator Facilities
Curator Director of
(Jessica) Assistant Catering
(Enrika) Docents Visitor Security
(John) Manager (Scott)
Services
(Ben)
Outreach Education Youth and Director of
Coordinator Assistant Family Corporate and Director of Security
(Emily) (Rebecca) Programs Marketing and Interns and Officers
Foundation volunteers
Coordinator Relations Membership
(Joyce) (James) (Allison)

Figure 8. Avery Art Museum organizational chart.

The Board

The board of directors consists of local CEOs and leaders who are economically

comfortable and well established in the community. The nominating committee carefully selects

potential board members based on the expertise that the museum most needs at the time of

nomination. While their roles and degree of participation differ, most board members whom I

interviewed agreed that their primary roles as board members are fundraising, policy-making,

managing funds, managing the director, and encouraging the community at large to be interested

in the Avery. The board as a whole is required to raise $200,000 a year for the museum, and each

member’s term is three years, which can be renewed.

The composition of the board of directors is largely homogeneous. There are no people of

color, no relatively young (under 40-years-old) people, nor artists. In terms of these

characteristics, the board is not representative of the community. However, board members do

come from different geographic sections of River City, and bring various essential forms of
 146

expertise to the Avery. For example, more than half of board members have a background in

business and currently hold CEO or equivalent positions at corporations in the region. The

current board president is the CEO of a local insurance company and another board member is

the vice president of a large agricultural machinery corporation. The board also includes

attorneys who can assist with the museum’s legal issues such as estates, copyright, and

employment. In addition, it includes members with marketing, arts, and medical backgrounds.

So, while the occupational backgrounds of members undoubtedly benefit the museum, it is

questionable whether these decision-makers can fully understand the concerns and aspirations of

the community as a whole.

Some staff members hold the position that the board does not need to reflect the

community to serve it well. In fact, since the community does not have a large group of visual art

supporters among the various educational, socioeconomic, and ethnic backgrounds, it may be

impossible to identify a truly representative board. The people who regularly patronize and seek

leadership positions related to the Avery at this point are mostly White, traditionally educated,

and wealthy. Therefore, these qualities characterize most sitting members of the board.

A few members of the board have clear arts-related backgrounds and expertise. For

example, Deborah, the former interim director, is the director of the River City Arts

Organization. She is the board member with the greatest understanding of how arts museums

work and what the museum’s roles are in the community. Two other board members, who are a

married couple, are also considered art smart because they have been collecting art for more than

20 years and read art magazines and art history-related books and articles on a regular basis. All

other board members whom I interviewed reported that they enjoy and appreciate art but are not

experts in art, art history, or arts organizations, specifically.

 147

Many staff members feel that, for a board of 21, having so few members with expertise in

the museum industry is unfortunate. One former museum staff member said, “I was often

frustrated with board members as consultants because they’re there to set policies and to apply

that. However, I was bothered by the fact that they did not understand our industry most of the

time” (personal communication, July 15, 2011). He questioned whether board members were in

the best position to advocate for the museum when they did not have a full understanding of how

an art museum functions and relates to the larger community. Since most board members have

full-time jobs and serve the museum on a volunteer basis, they cannot necessarily devote an

adequate amount of time to researching how the Avery functions and what each department and

staff member is responsible for. The museum education assistant, Rebecca, offered evidence of

this problem. She recounted working with a former board member who is a very well-known

lawyer in the area. In her words, “We had presented him with an introduction and all the

information about exhibitions, programs, and outreach. We walked him through the space and

told him all the stuff we do. When he sat down, he talked for 20 minutes about all the things we

should be doing, and they were all things that we’re already doing” (Rebecca, personal

communication, June 8, 2011).

There is a sense that the management, law, marketing, and fundraising expertise that

board members have does not translate perfectly to the particular circumstances of a visual art

education organization. For example, one former staff member said that the board of directors

made the decision to leave both positions of executive director and senior curator unfilled

because they did not understand the Avery’s potential and importance as a major art educational

institution in the community. This sentiment is shared by many in the field of museum

management who argue that corporate business management styles and principles cannot be
 148

transferred to a museum setting because museums have different ideological, economic, and

political values, not to mention that every museum is unique and different in itself (Moore,

1994).

Committees

The board consists of various committees whose members are appointed by the president

with board approval. While committees can include community members from outside the board,

currently the full board and the executive committee do not include anyone who is not a board or

museum staff member. The Avery has a number of committees, including the executive, finance,

development, education and outreach, acquisition and exhibition, and director search. The

executive committee is a subset of the full board and meets on alternate months from full board

meetings. Therefore, there are six full board meetings and six executive committee meetings a

year. Other committees meet once every two months as well. During the data collection process,

I was granted access to all types of board and committee meetings except for the executive and

finance committee meetings.

Development. The development committee meets with development staff members to

discuss fundraising strategies and ways to reduce the museum’s current debts. One development

committee meeting that I attended included Reta, the director of development; Allison, the

director of marketing and membership; Ed, the CFO and interim director; and Carol, the director

of museum services. There was one board member and one outside consultant from a

professional consulting firm for capital and endowment campaigns and planned and major gift

programs. The consultant shared interesting findings. As the museum’s strengths, he cited its

educational programs, collection, building, and its role as a visual art leader. The following were

identified as weaknesses: the museum is under staffed, it is financially under budget and carries
 149

facility debt, and it lacks major exhibitions that would attract larger audiences. To remedy these

problems, the consultant’s main recommendation was for the museum to undertake a capital

campaign to reduce the current debt and increase its endowment by six to eight million dollars by

2016.

After the consultant shared his assessment of the Avery, attendees discussed the new

capital campaign proposal recommended by the consultant. Reta, the director of development,

explained that the new fundraising approach would be community-driven. This proposed method

would rely on staff, board members, volunteers, and community members acting as a team to go

out to the community and identify a certain number of people who would be willing to contribute

a certain amount of money to the museum each year. Each team would consist of a captain and

five to 10 campaigners who would share the goal of raising a certain amount of money by the

end of the campaign year. The benefit of the team approach is that it would put less pressure on

any individual, particularly the members of the development committee, and would take

advantage of a great number of diverse types of connections to community members. Since the

museum hired the new director of development, Reta,6 who has significant experience in

fundraising and development for non-profit organizations, there was a general sense of optimism

about the museum’s development and financial future.

Education and outreach. The education and outreach committee consists of several

board members, community members, and education staff. Mary Jane, the curator of education,

is the liaison between the committee and museum. At the education and outreach committee

meeting that I attended, there were nine people in the room including myself. Committee

members emphasized that successful education and outreach practices are critical to achieving

the Avery’s mission. One board member pointed out, however, that no clear data or report of
6
Reta did not continue working at the Avery after a successful annual fundraising campaign for 2011/2012.
 150

educational impact on the community had been shared with community members. Therefore, it

can be assumed that most community members are not fully aware of the impact the Avery has

on children’s lives through its visual arts education and outreach programs. Deborah, a board

member and former interim director, said that while the Avery is well connected to public

schools, it has not yet penetrated the community as a whole to the same degree. This

conversation led to a question about how the museum lets community members know what it has

to offer. The attendees ended the meeting by generating a list of possibly more effective

marketing efforts, setting up categories and specific examples of target audiences and coming up

with more effective ways to market and advertise with those groups in mind. While the members

of this committee had fruitful discussions about how education and outreach could benefit from

marketing, the director of marketing and membership, Allison, was unfortunately not present.

One of the board members at the meeting later pointed out in a private conversation with me that

it was problematic that the director of marketing, Allison, was not present in the meeting that

discussed an important aspect of marketing. Allison is not usually part of the education and

outreach committee.

Acquisition and exhibition. When the museum became privatized and moved to

downtown Watertown in 2005, the museum formed an artist advisory committee consisting of

local artists and art professors; it lasted for about three years. The role of this committee was to

assist curatorial development that highlighted local and regional artists in River City and the

Midwest in general. The intent was to ensure that the museum would maintain an intimate

connection with local artists and art scenes. When the museum opened its new facilities, the

committee played an active role, curating two large shows—a contemporary landscape

exhibition and a contemporary glass show. Both exhibitions included many local artists and
 151

artists from the Midwest. However, because of intensive work and internal communication

challenges, the committee faded out of existence three years later. The nature of the current

acquisition and exhibition committee (A&E committee) is similar to that of the artist advisory

committee in that members help make decisions on acquisitions and exhibitions. Unlike the

former committee, though, they have no involvement with curatorial processes. The relationships

between the museum and local artists have weakened, and current members play a passive role

on the committee.

At one A&E meeting I attended, there were 13 people in the room, including several

board and community members as well as staff members Enrika, the associate curator, Ted, the

registrar, and Ed, the CFO and acting director. Except for two relatively young members, this

group was made up entirely of people in their 60s and 70s. Only several committee members

including two board members participated in the discussion. Enrika presented two upcoming

shows for committee approval even though she had already set up logistical plans for both

shows. At the end of the meeting, Enrika and Ted presented two 16th century European paintings

that they were considering for purchase. The New York City gallery that was selling the two

works sent the original paintings for the museum to consider. All committee members were

invited to appreciate the two paintings set up in the empty director’s office.

One member of the A&E committee, Jillian, has been on the museum committee for

about two years. According to Jillian, the A&E committee is not very active. In her words, “It’s

hardly moved forward. It is sort of retroactively introducing exhibition proposals, so that all

members would agree on these. I didn’t feel like she [Enrika, the associate curator] had the back-

up documentation even” (Jillian, personal communication, June 8, 2011). She also mentioned

that she did not receive any training from the museum about her roles as a committee member.
 152

She commented, “In my entire time on the committee, it’s been very frustrating because I feel

like our purpose isn’t quite clear. What can and can’t we do? It’s very odd that we’re called in to

vote on these things but we’re only given one option” (Jillian, personal communication, June 8,

2011). She wished for more systematic planning and clearer agendas.

Director search. The director search committee is a temporary committee established to

recruit and hire a new executive director for the Avery. It consists of several board members and

the acting director, the only staff member included. Some staff members said that the committee

was not moving forward as quickly as they would like. They reported that the search effort was

entirely stalled at one point due to the personal problems of one or two committee members. In

the summer of 2011, the search committee narrowed the candidate pool down to four people who

came to visit the museum and community and meet with staff members. However, the fact that

the executive director position was still advertised online as of January 2012 indicated that the

position was still vacant. An email conversation with Ted, the registrar, that took place in

January 2012, confirmed that the museum remained director-less at that point.7 Allison, the

director of marketing and membership, said out of desperation that she hopes someone donates

an executive director to the museum. She said that board members might not realize how much

they need a leader for the museum.

Leadership

Since the Avery Art Museum opened its new facility, it has experienced frequent

turnover among directors and other staff. There have been two executive directors and three

interim directors over the past six years. While the tendency for some staff turnover is found in

many non-profit organizations (Peters & Wolfred, 2001), the Avery’s director turnover is more

7
This executive director search fell apart. The museum did another national search in the spring of 2012. A final
candidate from the latter search accepted the job offer in June 2012 and started to lead the museum beginning in
August 2012.
 153

frequent than most nonprofit organizations. This has posed a great challenge for the museum and

its staff. According to Peters and Wolfred (2001), the average tenure of directors of 1,072

nonprofit organizations of all sizes in California, Texas, Hawaii, and Washington, D.C., is three

to five years. Some said that at the Avery the absence of an executive director and the many

changes caused by privatization of the museum might have contributed to an unstable museum

organizational and leadership structure. According to Marjorie Schwarzer (2002), in general,

museum director turnover in the United States is caused by organizational complexity, burnout

from stress, too great a workload, and tension among staff, community, board, and donors.

The first director, during and after the privatization of the Avery, guided the transition

from the municipal museum to a private museum as well as the construction of the new facility.

However, she was fired after the museum opened its new building. According to one staff

member, the former director was good at establishing a new institution but was not confident

enough to lead and maintain it. After she was let go, one board member at the time filled the

director role as the interim director. The former executive director, Ken, was hired in 2007 after

18 months without a director, and he managed the museum for about three and a half years until

the end of 2011.

Staff and board members expressed mixed opinions about Ken’s leadership at the Avery.

Most people agreed that Ken was an innovative leader and raised the bar of the museum as a

community-educational site through collaboration and partnerships with many organizations in

the community. For example, a former museum staff, Josh said:

Ken was an unconventional leader. I would be surprised if the next director has as much

success as Ken did. He was very aggressive in bringing in partners and collections, very
 154

successful with the local universities and businesses in establishing partnerships.

(personal communication, July 19, 2011)

However, some mentioned that his vision was not clear, and he did not communicate

effectively with staff. According to the director of security, Scott, “Ken was trying to please

everybody. He’d say yes to both people who are going against each other” (personal

communication, June 23, 2011). Despite some dissatisfaction about Ken’s ability to

harmoniously manage his staff, the overall consensus is that one of the key contributions of his

directorship was for the Avery to take on a more proactive, inviting, friendly posture in relation

to the community. Many expressed that they wish he had stayed in the position longer.

Before Ken officially submitted his resignation, the board of directors felt the need to

bring someone in from outside the organization to lead the Avery in his absence. They thought

that having a leader from outside the museum would minimize bias and emotion in the decision-

making process. They recruited Deborah, who was also the director of River City Arts

Organization, to be a board member before Ken left. She was subsequently asked to serve as the

interim director right after Ken left. Deborah quickly made a number of significant decisions,

including revising position responsibilities, eliminating positions, and reducing programming to

the point of minimal operation. She said that these changes were necessary until a solution to the

budget deficit could be identified and put in place. Deborah said that the decisions were made to

allow the museum to survive rather than to propel it to flourish. Deborah served as the interim

director of the Avery for about eight months. Since Deborah stepped down, the CFO, Ed, has

been serving as the acting director, wearing multiple organizational hats.

According to most staff members, because of the frequent changes in leadership, staff

composition (the museum lost two members due to illness within the past couple of years), and
 155

working styles, the museum’s vision and strategic plans have not been clear or stable. Many staff

members have felt confused about the museum’s direction. The rate and scale of change have

also influenced staff members to resort to focusing simply on getting their own work done—they

do not have a clear sense of how their contributions relate to the museum’s function as a whole.

As this brief narrative of the history of the directorship shows and as many participants also

stated, the Avery did not have a long-term leader who really understood the community and what

the Avery had meant and could become to that community.

During Mary Jane’s 20 years as the curator of education, she has worked for three

executive directors, including directors before privatization, as well as at least three interim

directors. She believes that none demonstrated strong leadership or true love for the community.

She continued that no one had a clear vision and, therefore, the museum does not even have a

strategic plan that is applicable in the long run. The former senior curator, Jack, agrees that there

has not been clear leadership or a strong strategic plan since the museum opened and that the

sense of a strategic direction was at its weakest during the 18 director-less months before Ken

arrived.

This notion of strategic planning is another concept that overlaps with mission and vision

and is closely related to institutional goals. Unlike mission and vision statements that tend to be

general, strategic plans describe specific ways to accomplish designated institutional goals.

According to Smit (1999), the concept of strategic intent embraces:

an active management process that includes: focusing the organization’s attention on the

essence of winning; motivating people by communicating the value of the target; leaving

room for individual and team contributions; sustaining enthusiasm by providing new
 156

operational definitions as circumstances change; and using intent consistently to guide

resource allocation. (p. 130)

Based on Smit’s definition, strategic intent and planning are processes that all people who work

in the institution can participate in through active communication and teamwork in order to

achieve institutional goals. In contrast to what Mary Jane implied, a strategic plan need not be

defined exclusively by the director’s vision but could be considered a collective planning effort

involving the entire staff from all levels. According to the Avery’s Institutional Plan, the

museum must have written strategic plans for three areas: collections, education, and finance and

development. Since these strategic plans do not seem to be widely embraced among staff, there

is an opportunity for them to be further developed and adopted by each staff and department and

by the institution as a whole.

However, many staff and board members emphasized the importance of having a strong

leader in order to have strong institutional leadership. Deborah commented, “If the Avery had a

very strong leader in place, it is my opinion that the board would be a lot more productive than I

believe it is” (personal communication, July 16, 2011). Mary Jane mentioned that to gain

stronger leadership, hierarchy is somewhat necessary. She did not mean the micromanaging of

the staff, but argued that the museum needs some kind of structure, strong direction, target

audiences, and applicable strategic plans. Reta, director of development, said that in order to

achieve a strong institution, having a strong leader is the first step. Based on her experience

working in many non-profit and educational organizations, the leader sets the culture of

communication and working styles, directions, and strategic plans.

 157

Staff and Department Structure

While the organizational chart (Figure 8) does not specifically divide museum staff

members into departments, according to my observations and interviews, the Avery’s staff

members and roles can be divided into six departments: education, curatorial/registration,

development/marketing, visitor services, museum services, and facility management.

Education department. Mary Jane, the curator of education, is the longest working full-

time staff member and the head of the education department. She holds a bachelor’s degree in

painting and master’s degree in art history. She also has background in art museum education.

She oversees all public programs and trains docents. She is responsible for inviting speakers and

hosting receptions for educational programs. The education department also manages the family

activity center and four studios and prepares programs and exhibitions for those spaces. Mary

Jane works with and supervises three staff members—Emily, the outreach coordinator; Rebecca,

the education assistant; and Joyce, the youth and family programs coordinator.

Emily was hired in 2009 and works mainly on the school outreach program. She goes to

public schools to provide visual art lessons for children who may not usually have access to

formal visual art education. Emily is from the St. Louis area and holds a master’s degree in art

history and has experience in teaching college students.

Rebecca, the education assistant, has a business degree from a local university. She is

from the River City area and worked as an event planner before attaining her initial position at

the Avery as administrative assistant to the director. Because of her prior experience working

with the public and in the public school system, she was soon promoted to the education assistant

position. Rebecca helps create and develop programs and takes registrations for workshops and

classes. As of summer 2011, she had been at the Avery for five years.
 158

Joyce is the youth and family programs coordinator. She is originally from Michigan and

holds a bachelor’s degree in drawing. Before being hired by the Avery, she worked in the early

learning department at a local radio station. The summer of 2011 marked her sixth year as an

Avery employee. Her main responsibilities include organizing family days and events, school

children’s programs, and related tours and programs. Although she usually contracts outside art

teachers for children and youth classes, she also occasionally offers her own workshops and art

classes for children. She is also responsible for the museum’s after-school outreach program.

While Emily, Rebecca, Joyce, and Mary Jane work together as a team to develop and

execute education programs at the Avery, Mary Jane is the primary initiator. She also has the

authority to offer final approval of all programs developed by the education department.

Curatorial/registration department. The curatorial/registration department is located

on the first floor of the museum along with security staff and facility manager. With no senior

curator in place, Enrika, the associate curator, works alone on collections research, exhibition

planning, and other curatorial tasks. Enrika is originally from Germany and holds a Ph.D. in art

history. She held a curatorial fellow position for a year at another art museum before coming to

work with the Avery in 2009. At the time Enrika was hired, the museum had just lost its senior

curator due to illness. As a result of these circumstances, Enrika did not receive the usual

curatorial training afforded to a new hire. The former director, Ken, hired a part-time senior

curator, Jack. Since Jack was also serving as a professor at a college 40 miles from Watertown,

he only worked two days a week at the Avery. However, after Ken left the Avery, the board of

directors did not renew Jack’s contract. Although Enrika struggled with many changes and

challenges in her department, as of the summer of 2011 she was feeling more confident in her

work, and other staff were appreciating her contributions.

 159

Ted, the registrar, was hired in 2008 after having worked in the museum field for more

than 20 years. He is originally from the Washington, D. C., area where he worked as a museum

technician and registrar for many years at the Smithsonian Institution and other nationally

recognized museums. Ted’s role at the Avery is to keep track of the museum’s collection, keep it

safe, and make travel arrangements for incoming and outgoing artwork. Ted occasionally helps

design and install exhibitions as the museum employs only one full-time preparator, Jessica.

Jessica works with and reports to Ted in installing exhibitions, but does not usually participate in

the exhibition development process. Jessica’s background spans the business, art, and design

realms. Before attaining her position at the Avery in 2008, she was an intern in the collections

department at another art museum. In her current role, she mainly works on exhibition

installation, including applying interpretive labels and panels on the walls. Enrika, Ted, and

Jessica share an office space near the museum’s collection storage area, forming the

registration/exhibition department. Enrika and Ted report to the director.

Development/marketing department. The director of development, Reta, who is from

Michigan, was hired at the beginning of 2011. She has significant former experience in financial

development and fundraising at educational institutions such as universities. She is charged with

overseeing all development efforts at the Avery in collaboration with the CFO and board

members from the development committee. Reta reports to the director and supervises two staff

members, James and Allison.

James, whose background is in anthropology, management, and construction, started

working at the Avery in February 2009. As the director of corporate and foundation relations, his

primary role is to write grants to supplement funding for museum exhibitions and programs. He

also solicits corporate sponsorships for museum programs and events. His position was newly
 160

created in 2009 when the museum needed a designated person to focus on grant writing.

Although James did not have prior experience in either fundraising or development, he has been

successful in generating outside financial sources through grants and sponsorships. In the

2010/11 fiscal year, the Avery was awarded about 20 out of 30 grants for which James applied.

Allison, who is from the River City region, was hired in July 2005 shortly after the

museum opened the new facility. She holds a bachelor’s degree in art history and interior design

and a master’s degree in business administration. Allison’s title is the director of marketing and

membership, but she also works on special fundraising, membership events planning, and

preparation of financial reports. The museum used to utilize an advertising company for their

marketing, but Allison is now responsible for almost all marketing, including the museum

newsletter, Facebook site, banners, e-blast, press release, and media contacts to arrange print and

television advertising. While the education department regularly proposes marketing efforts for

its programs, Allison is sometimes involved in modifying and editing their materials before

publication. Allison also oversees memberships and annual giving, which generate about

$200,000 a year. Because Allison prepares solicitation letters aimed at donors every year and has

kept track of the donor database since the museum opened the new building, she has a great deal

of knowledge on donor history. She plans non-education, internally executed events, such as

member appreciation dinners, the 4th of July Watch Party, the Gala, and other fund-raising

events. For the Gala 2011, the museum spent $10,000 to raise $100,000, which is a very

successful return.

Visitor services. The visitor services department consists of five part-time staff

members, who are supervised by the museum store manager, Julie. Julie, who is from the area,

started working at the museum in 1997 as a part-time store manager shortly after graduating
 161

from college. She was promoted to full-time store manager when the new museum building

opened to the public in 2005. She is in charge of buying and selling items for the store and

managing the inventory. She took on the additional responsibility of managing the visitor

services staff at the end of 2010. During weekdays, visitor services staff members work in the

store selling admission and memberships as well as helping with the store operation. While

visitor services staff occupy the lobby desk during the weekend, there is no desk attendant during

the week.

Museum services. The director of museum services, Carol, was hired in 2005 and is

from the region. She has background in art, education, and business and holds a bachelor’s

degree from a local university. She has experience in non-profit organization management. Her

first position at the Avery was manager of volunteer and visitor services. Carol currently

manages all rental services at the museum and works with the catering manager, Ben, and the

director of security, Scott. She serves as the primary liaison between the museum and other

contracted companies and assists other museum departments such as development and education.

She is also in charge of interns and volunteer management, securing sufficient help for specific

events and department needs.

Facility management. The facilities manager, Bill, and the facilities assistant, John, who

reports to Bill, are in charge of maintaining the museum’s amenities. Bill worked in the

construction business for more than 30 years before taking the job at the Avery. He was a field

manager for Avery’s new building construction and was asked to manage the building after

completion. Bill reports to the director. John has job experience in produce management and

construction. He started working at the Avery as a part-time staff member and became full-time a

couple of years ago. Bill and John are both from the River City area. Considering the size of the
 162

building (120,000 square feet), according to Bill and John, two facility staff members are not

enough to take care of the entire building. Both of them mentioned the difficulty of maintaining

the facility with limited human power and funding, but they manage the challenge by prioritizing

the most urgent projects and completing them one by one. They occasionally help with

installation when Jessica, the only preparator, cannot handle all of the installation work alone.

The museum employs a part-time cleaning crew for gallery floors and bathrooms.

Administrative assistant. Karen, also from the River City area, was hired in September

2009 as the administrative assistant. Prior to working at the Avery, she worked in the financial

industry and at a non-profit organization. She does not report to any specific department, but

rather handles any administrative work required by museum staff. Her main efforts involve

managing the accounts receivables and payables, including membership fees, admissions, and

other museum services revenues. She also schedules and prepares for board and committee

meetings and maintains meeting minutes. She is not involved with programming or curatorial

development. As an African American, she is the only staff member of color. She reports to the

director.

Discussion

In this chapter, I detailed the museum’s organizational system, including its governing

structure, divisions, and staff roles. My observations and interviews led me to conclude that the

museum’s management and organization systems follow the traditional top-down business

model, having the governing authority rest with the board of directors and its various

committees. While committees have some authority to make decisions and discuss priorities,

final decisions are made in board and executive committee meetings, which do not include

community members who serve on other committees. Each department is structured in a mini-
 163

hierarchical form, having a head with several subordinate staff members. In addition, major

decisions are made at the top by the board members and director and are delivered to the rest of

the staff members. For example, as I discussed earlier, the museum was looking for a new

executive director, but the search committee did not include any staff members except the CFO,

the acting director at the time. During an interview with a former Avery staff member, he told

me that he was disappointed to know that the director search committee did not include staff

members except for the acting director, feeling that this reflects a lack of trust among board

members in the Avery staff. According to Janes (2009), most museums follow a hierarchical

business model that allows the director and board of trustees to make most major decisions

without significant input from staff members.

The Avery also reflects some characteristics of a mechanical organization structure as

discussed in Chapter Two—its control and communication are based on a hierarchical model,

decisions are made by people who hold upper-level management positions, and it has different

departments, roles, and tasks divided among staff members. However, some said that the

organization structure is not as hierarchical as it could be because of the small staff size—16 full-

time and five part-time positions, as opposed to larger museums, which employ more than 50

full-time staff members. The museum has only three vertical levels separating the highest and

lowest positions if one counts governing authority, department heads, and rest of the staff.

According to John Child (1973), larger organizations tend to have more extended hierarchies,

more rules and documentation, a greater decentralization of decision-making, and more

characteristics of a bureaucratic organization structure.

Overall, the Avery follows a mixed form of organizational and managerial structure that

carries both qualities of mechanical and organic models. The established hierarchical
 164

relationships among staff members often become fuzzy in practice as staff members from

different positions are frequently invited to share their opinions. For example, the director of

development, Reta, stated that the organizational style of the Avery is pretty flat because it has

culture where everybody is welcome to pitch in and help each other. It also has organic

organization qualities in that it has been flexible in changing its governing structure and funding

sources and revising its mission statement to meet the changing needs and interests of the

community.

However, understanding the Avery’s organization and managerial styles can be

subjective and complex. It is important to note that Reta, who feels that the museum has a flat

organization structure, is a new employee who holds a senior-level position. Her perspective on

the museum’s organization structure may not represent those of staff members who have lower

ranking positions. In fact, several staff members at lower levels of authority expressed concern

that their voices are not adequately incorporated into curation and programming processes.

Scholars documented the tendency of museum staff members to be dissatisfied with poor

communication and a lack of participation in decision-making process in work environments

(Farnell, 1984; Kahn & Garden, 1994).

Closely related to the issues of managerial styles and organizational structure is the issue

of leadership. The absence of an executive director during the summer of 2011 made it difficult

to define the museum’s leadership strategies and styles. What is clear from conversations with

staff members, though, is that there is a widespread desire for a leader with a strong vision and

presence, who can make the museum more vibrant, active, and responsive to community needs. I

did not sense that the Avery as a whole seeks leadership that is either highly authoritative or

consultative. Rather, there were mixed opinions. Some staff said that the museum needs a strong
 165

leader who can implement more hierarchy in the museum structure, thus setting a strong vision

that can be clearly understood by all staff members. This belief is closely related to leadership

trait theories explained in the second part of Chapter Two. Trait theories believe that there are

certain qualities that great leaders have and that the success of an organization highly depends on

the right selection of the leader (Handy, 1993). Some staff members assume that the future of the

Avery only depends on the leader not on a sound work culture or various relationships among

staff members; board members; visitors; docents and volunteers; other community members; and

surrounding social, cultural, and economic environments. On the other hand, other staff members

said that they would prefer a more democratic leading style, such as that displayed by the former

executive director, Ken.

Although this was not mentioned, the best leader for the museum may be one who does

not fall squarely into either of these camps. For example, some participants suggested that

because Ken’s leadership style was too demographic and casual, it confused some staff members

about the directions and goals of the museum. Perhaps what the museum needs is a flexible

leader who will apply different strategies to suit different situations (Fiedler, 1967; Handy, 1993;

Moore, 1994; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). When dealing with dynamic complexity such as leading

an organization, systems thinking is a very useful mindset or framework that all involved people

can master (Senge, 2006). A problem of an organization or system does not come from one

person or one element that is in charge but from all involved people or elements and other

interrelated circumstances. A leader can be part of the success or the problem but can never be

the sole influence on the entire organization. Therefore, an ideal leader might be one who

understands these complex relationships of all involved elements and people and who can help

staff members learn to think systemically, learn to work together, and learn to grow for the future
 166

(Senge, 2006). In doing so, an organization becomes a learning community that continues to

grow and learns to be better (Senge, 2006).

Recently, the trend in museum leadership is to move away from authoritarian leadership

and to move toward more open, participatory, and consultative styles (Moore, 1994). This

collective leadership style emphasizes mutual accountability, consensus decision-making, and

rotating roles (Setterberg & Schulman, 1985). According to Janes (1999), the collective

leadership model that has a group of leaders rather than a lone director at the top of the hierarchy

can be a useful model for museums and can extend the opportunity and responsibility of leading

to all staff members. As a former director, Janes (1999) led the Glenbow Museum, Calgary,

Canada, using the collective leadership style in order to respond to challenges due to reduced

government funding in the early 1990s and to make the museum a more active and relevant part

of the community. For instance, a self-managed team approach allowed staff members to choose

leaders of each team, who were rotated every two years in order to keep staff fresh and reduce

the sense of hierarchy in each team (Janes, 1999).

While most staff members argued that strong leadership requires a strong leader,

inclusive, team-oriented practices can allow sound leadership to derive not only from the

governing authority but also from staff members of all levels and positions. Don Yaeger (2011)

provides an excellent argument for how effective use of teamwork and collaboration can lead to

the achievement of outstanding institutional goals. Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal (2008)

argue similarly that leadership is not a tangible thing that can be achieved by a lone director but

rather should be understood as a “holistic process of mutual influence” (p. 37) that emerges

through relationships among all engaged parties. This view is related to Senge’s (2006) concept
 167

of the learning community described above and in Chapter Two: an efficient organization is

continuously learning to work together and shifting to be better for the future.

The museum’s staff population and backgrounds also affect the museum’s overall

practices. While the staff, board members, and docents are fairly homogenous when it comes to

ethnicity, gender, educational level, and socioeconomic status, they are more diverse in terms of

career and educational backgrounds and age. More than two-thirds of the full-time staff members

are women, all part-time staff members are women, and most docents are retired female teachers.

The Avery has only one male docent and two docent members who are people of color. Most

staff members are from the Midwest, although several staff members are from other areas of the

country and even from other countries. For example, Enrika, the associate curator, is from

Germany and one part-time visitor service staff member is from the United Kingdom. Most staff

members, with the exception of the facilities manager, Bill; the facilities assistant, John; and the

administrative assistant, Karen; have bachelor’s degrees or higher. The curator of education,

Mary Jane; the director of development, Reta; the outreach coordinator, Emily; and the director

of marketing and membership, Allison, have master’s degrees. The associate curator, Enrika,

holds a doctoral degree.

According to Elizabeth E. Merritt (2010), only 20% of museum employees in the United

States are members of minority racial groups in spite of the fact that the most recent United

States Census (2011) indicates that at least one-third of the total population is composed of racial

minorities. Museum board member composition is similarly unrepresentative of the total

population (Tucker, 1992). It is important to consider whether this dearth of museum

professionals from different ethnic, cultural, and geographical backgrounds is limiting museums

from adopting more diverse, inclusive ways of programming and curating. In the words of Eric
 168

Siegel, the director of the New York Hall of Science, “Too many middle aged hyper-educated

White people are going to limit the degree to which museums incorporate other points of view”

(Merritt, 2010, p. 30). Merritt (2010) acknowledges that the overrepresentation of White women

(80%) in museum studies programs creates a major obstacle to diversify museum practices by

trying to hire more minority museum professionals. Rather, multiple approaches need to be

implemented. Merritt (2010) suggests that museum professionals take the following actions to

address the problem: 1) demand and offer more extensive training on how diversity issues affect

museum practices and outcomes, 2) recruit more diverse students into museum studies or related

programs, and 3) diversify staff through recruiting professionals from non-traditional museum

training and arts-related fields. As the Avery’s director of development, Reta, said “The best

ideas come when people sit around a table and debate ideas and talk about things. To me that's

when you get the best product. So, if you have people from diverse backgrounds and you talk

about how to move the museum forward . . . you are going to come up with better solutions”

(personal communication, May 19, 2011).

How a museum is organized and managed inevitably affects its practices, including

exhibitions and programs. In the case of the Avery, while some tasks and roles of staff members

overlap, the museum’s distinctive division of curatorial and education departments has resulted

in insufficient collaboration and communication between the two departments. I discuss the

museum’s work culture, communication, and collaboration process in great detail in Chapter

Seven.

Summary and Reflection

While I devoted Chapters Four and Five to the community and museum, respectively,

these two chapters are parts of one story. In Chapter Four, I have described the River City
 169

community’s economy, demographic composition, arts and culture, collaboration with other

organizations, and education based on my observations and conversations with staff and

community members. In Chapter Five, I have discussed the Avery’s institutional history, mission

and vision, and organizational structure. By doing this, I have located the Avery within the

context of its potential audiences and surrounding environments and provided a general sense of

the unique culture of the community and museum. The contextual description also demonstrates

how the River City community and the Avery have coevolved. A brief summary of this process

follows.

In the 1950s the Central River attracted many businesses to the River City area as the

river provided a major means for transportation at the time, and massive amounts of farmland

and appropriate weather provided ideal conditions for the farming industry. Farming also

required heavy equipment for mass production, which went hand in hand with the farming

machinery industry. Due to changes in the main industry, the community started to diversify its

economy through emphasizing education and hospitality. In addition, people in the community

began to demand more arts and cultural amenities and informal educational opportunities. As a

result, the decades spanning 1970s through the 2000s saw a great increase in arts and cultural

organizations. Consequently, the board of directors and the City of Watertown decided to move

the museum to the heart of downtown to serve more community members and create a more

vibrant downtown area. The new Avery is also a means to attract more people, businesses, and

shopping to the downtown area, thus revitalizing the economy.

The fact that most staff members are from the region underscores the notion that the

Avery is an integrated part of the community. Because all staff members live in River City

(except the registrar who commutes from a city 70 miles from River City) and many grew up in
 170

the region, they love the community and understand it very well. They attended the schools that

belong to the River City educational infrastructure and their children attend them now. Even

those that were not raised in the region are current residents of River City and regularly take

advantage of the amenities of the town. They are consumers and economic participants. The

museum’s collection, which was developed by people of the community over time, is now seen,

used, and valued by them. Since public money was essential to constructing the museum’s

building and amenities, these belong to the community in a financial sense as well, although the

name of the museum may instead represent powerful private wealth in the community. Three

hundred community members volunteer at the Avery every year in order to help it and their

community succeed; they understand that by serving the Avery, they serve the community at

large.

Just as the community has served the museum, the museum has increasingly striven to

give back. The museum has modified its identify, exhibitions, and programs over the years to

expand its target region and develop new audiences. It has consistently demonstrated a sincere

intention to positively influence the lives of local people through providing programs,

exhibitions, and special events that are influenced by the modified institutional mission, vision,

strategic plans, leadership, and teamwork. It has filled a gap in the educational infrastructure of

River City and simulated the region’s economy.

While these interconnected relationships have strengthened the role of the museum as an

important visual art educational institution in the community, flaws in the organizational

structure, communication processes, and work culture of the museum have kept it from reaching

its full potential. As outlined above, because the organizational structure and leadership have not

been adequately efficient and stable, the culture of the working environment, along with its
 171

communication and collaboration practices have become less efficient. Inadequate collaboration

has in turn affected how the museum creates its primary services, exhibitions and programs—the

key means by which the museum connects with community members. The result is that museum

services are too often experienced as fragmented or irrelevant to the community. Potential

diverse audiences are not attracted in full capacity to the Avery. Fundraising suffers as people

choose to withhold donations from an institution they do not use or value, which further

incapacitates the museum from taking the steps necessary to become more connected or relevant

to the community. The connectedness and disconnectedness between the museum and

community, especially how the museum’s primary services are related to visitorship and the

community’s overall perception of the Avery, are further developed in the following chapter.
 172

CHAPTER SIX: PRIMARY MUSEUM SERVICES, COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS, AND

VISITORSHIP

As I explained in Chapter Four, the Avery Art Museum is a major visual art educational

organization in the community. As the recent revision in its mission statement in 2006 shows

(see Chapter Four), the Avery emphasizes the educational role of the museum while maintaining

its traditional museum role of collecting, conserving, and researching significant works of art for

the public. The Avery’s exhibitions and educational programs, which are primary museum

services, provide educational experiences for visitors and share knowledge, messages, and ideas

with them. Many museum staff members told me that while collecting, conserving, and

researching the collection is an important role of the museum, engaging exhibitions and

educational programs bring people in and provide better opportunities for learning and social

interactions rather than just looking at paintings and reading labels. The Avery’s visitor

demographic survey8 conducted in spring 2011 confirmed that most people visit the museum

during weekends when there are special events such as lectures, gallery talks, and evening

events, which demonstrates why there are not many visitors coming to the museum during

weekdays when few lectures, programs, and events are provided.

While the museum has been educating adults and children of the community in visual art,

the museum has failed to reach out to diverse community members who do not tend to be

attracted to the current museum offerings. In addition, there has been a predominant perception

about the museum that it is an elitist institution where not all people from the community are

8
Students in the Museum Studies program of the Midwestern University collaborated with the Avery staff to
conduct a demographic survey of Avery visitors to achieve a greater understanding of who was coming to the
museum. Two museum studies students, Sarah and Amy, created the survey questions, and the actual survey was
coordinated and conducted by the director of museum services, Carol, museum studies students, and volunteers. At
the end of 2011, the analysis of the data prepared by the director of the Museum Studies program, Tina, was shared
with the staff and me. The survey was conducted on weekdays, weekends, and during other special events for 30
days. Approximately 430 people, age 18 and older, participated.
 173

welcome. As a result, the museum’s visitors still represent only a certain group of people in the

community who tend to be socioeconomically and educationally affluent.

In this chapter, I investigate the Avery’s exhibitions and educational programs and

analyze how some programs and exhibitions are more inviting and popular among visitors while

some are considered not very engaging, relevant, and even elitist. In the second section of the

chapter, I discuss how the museum’s exhibitions, programs, physical spaces, and other related

practices have shaped the community’s perceptions of the Avery. I examine why these elements

created elitist perceptions of the museum in the community and why they appeal to a certain

group of people in the community. While the museum does not know why some people do not

use the museum, I describe how the museum is predominantly perceived in the community.

These perceptions may suggest why some people do not want to go to the Avery nor feel

comfortable visiting it.

Exhibitions and Programs

The museum offers a variety of exhibitions and programs. Much of the programming is

designed to coordinate with exhibition themes and topics. Other special events and programs

relate to annual arts and music festivals around the River City area. The museum has permanent

exhibitions showing the museum collection and about 10 changing exhibitions a year. These

changing shows include traveling exhibitions from other institutions and collections from local

universities and companies. Because of the limited curatorial budget, the associate curator,

Enrica, tries to curate thematic exhibitions that use works of art from the museum’s collection

and collections from local businesses and universities. The curatorial department, including the

registrar, Ted, who helps with curatorial processes occasionally, tries to mount exhibitions that
 174

appeal to local people but this effort is limited by the fact that the museum has no thorough

market research information about the art interests of local audiences.

The museum provides typical art museum programs such as docent tours, lectures, and

gallery talks, as well as some unique programs: free family days; a downtown walking tour;

Thursday evening at the Avery; a scholarship program;9 and art classes for adults, youths, and

children. While the exhibitions and programs are linked together in terms of themes and topics,

the process of curating and programming is somewhat disjointed in that the exhibitions are

curated by the curatorial department, while programs are developed by the education department

without sufficient communication and collaboration between the two departments.

Exhibitions

The museum’s approach to exhibitions and galleries is considered traditional. Some

participants described presentation of artwork as the “Western way,” in that each piece is

displayed on a white wall with an accompanying label. O’Doherty (1986) argues this white cube

gallery approach is an ideal space to appreciate work of art because it keeps the social and

political context out of the aesthetic qualities of the work. Then, the space becomes part of

artwork, transforming context to content; the space is not neutral anymore. While the white cube

approach to museum exhibitions is still considered standard practice of most museums, this

modern, minimalist approach made many people uncomfortable at the Avery, making people feel

that personal knowledge and contexts are not allowed in the gallery space.

Most of the time, exhibitions are not hands-on, that is, physical interaction with artwork

is prohibited. In most art museums across the board, visitors are not allowed to touch works of

9
This scholarship is funded by a local charitable organization focused on educational and social issues and is
managed by the Avery’s education department. Local senior high school students submit applications with their high
school transcript, a portfolio, and two letters of recommendations for one-time scholarships of $12,000 that helps
them study art, art design, or art education. For 2012, they granted six scholarships to local students.
 175

art due to the requirements for collection conservation, although some art museums offer special

collections of touchable works or replicas for blind visitors. The permanent exhibitions can be

considered diverse in that they include Hispanic and Haitian arts as well as crafts and furniture

exhibits. The most beloved permanent exhibition among general population in River City is the

regionalist exhibition, which includes the work of nationally recognized regionalist artists, such

as Grant Wood, Thomas Hart Benton, and John Bloom.

Practical art. According to my participants, the community enjoys decorative arts and

industrial crafts. One visitor from the River City area said that he likes furniture exhibitions

because he can relate to the material culture and practical art on a personal level. Another visitor,

who is a local public school teacher, told me that she enjoyed the museum’s previously mounted

practical art exhibits such as blown glass and woodcarving exhibits. In the summer of 2011, as I

described in Chapter Five, the museum had an exhibition of a blown glass installation in the

introduction gallery on the first floor, the first gallery seen as visitors enter the display space.

Individual pieces of the installation looked like a corncob, a symbol closely related to the

economic and natural landscape of the community in and around River City. One visitor told me

that the relationship of this installation to the local landscape evoked a sense of ownership

among visitors. He said, “I understand how people, most people from the area, would be very

turned on by that” (personal communication, May 20, 2011). This installation is a nice visual

contemporary interpretation of the industry and landscape of River City.

During the summer of 2011, the museum hosted a traveling exhibition that featured the

history and art of chairs in the United States for two centuries, which was prepared by a

contemporary art museum in the United States. The exhibition consisted of more than 40 chairs

differing in time periods, size, shape, color, and style. The interpretive panels and labels
 176

accompanying the exhibition included information about designers, cultural and social contexts,

and art and style movements. Several visitors whom I interviewed appreciated the chair

exhibition very much as they were able to connect to the theme of the exhibition on a personal

level because they use chairs on a daily basis. While they felt the chairs featured in the show

were works of art, chairs were also functioning furniture that has been commonly used in the

everyday lives of most people. One visitor told me that the chair exhibition was her favorite

among many shows on view in the museum at the time because she felt like she was able to

understand aesthetics of the chairs, read labels, and talk about it without feeling that she did not

have enough knowledge about the subject matter.

As mentioned earlier, the museum previously mounted exhibitions on woodcarving and

quilt work that were considered, by several visitors, staff members, board members, and docents,

practical and easily understandable art among community members in River City. The museum’s

curator created the woodcarving show from the permanent museum collection in 2009 while the

quilt show was a traveling exhibition that was developed by another institution. Traveling

exhibitions created by outside organizations tend to be appealing to a wide variety of audiences

because these shows are designed to travel to diverse areas of the United States or even to

international cities. While these pre-curated exhibitions can guarantee popularity and may attract

diverse community members, this could end up being a special show, which is fundamentally

different from how the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston has approached minority art and culture.

Marzio (1991) presented Hispanic art with other Western art exhibitions rather than labeling it

special or showing it occasionally. Marzio found a way to locate minority art equally within

mainstream western art and culture.

 177

Community-oriented exhibitions. The majority of Avery exhibitions utilize the

museum’s permanent collection or works contributed by professional artists who are selected and

invited by the museum. The museum sometimes shows traveling exhibitions such as the chair

show or quilt exhibition (described above) that are prepared by other museums or arts

organizations. Occasionally, though, through programs like the young artists exhibition, the

museum showcases the artwork of local college or high school students or younger children.

Students appreciate the opportunity to exhibit their work at the museum, and the events often

attract many parents and family members who would not come to the museum otherwise. In the

words of a docent, “I think it [children’s art show] must have a really positive effect because it

gets people to the museum who would never come for other reasons” (personal communication,

July 12, 2012). A local artist and art professor, Bonnie, echoes this sentiment in saying, “Our

students have great pride when they’re in that show [college student show] and that brings in a

population that’s pretty sweet, to see all the families coming in with that” (personal

communication, July 14, 2011).

In the summer of 2011 the museum had a docent-picked exhibition that was curated by

more than 30 museum docents. The each participating docent went through the museum’s

permanent collection and chose several pieces to be included in the show. The chosen works of

art included not only their favorites but also what they understood to be the visitors’ favorites,

information that they gained by leading a number of tours. The show was developed and

executed by the curator of education, Mary Jane, in collaboration with an education intern, who

was a student in the Museum Studies program. Enrika, the associate curator, did not play a major

part in organizing this exhibition. The docents were invited to write their own labels for their

selected works, which were subsequently edited by Mary Jane to ensure cohesiveness. Uniting
 178

the contributions from a variety of docents resulted in the labels having a different quality from

the rest of the labels in the permanent exhibitions. They were much shorter, easier to understand,

and embedded in personal stories. This show included almost no abstract or minimalist art,

consisting exclusively of paintings, sculptures, and photographs that could be described as

figurative and descriptive. One visitor commented that this docent-curated exhibition was

somehow sweeter, softer, and easier.

Soon after moving to its new location, the museum had several exhibitions showing the

work of local artists, including two major exhibitions: a contemporary landscape exhibition and a

contemporary glass show. Unfortunately, though, the frequency of this type of exhibition has

decreased, leaving many local artists feeling excluded from the museum. This change in

exhibition approach might be related to the museum’s effort to become a nationally recognized

art museum as indicated in the museum’s vision, goals, and strategic plans approved under Ken’s

leadership (See Appendix B). In addition, the artist advisory group that highlighted local and

regional artists in River City and the Midwest was dissolved in 2008 after three years of assisting

curatorial development. The museum store does, however, have a wall dedicated to local artists’

work available for purchase. I do not have specific information about how well these locally

created works of art sell. The store also carries locally created jewelry, greeting cards, and

needlework. According to a visitor service staff member who frequently works at the museum

store, it is common for board members to do Christmas shopping at the museum store. I once

saw Enrika shopping at the store. I also purchased a couple of jewelry and artistic items (some

were locally produced and some were not) at the store while I was there for three months.

According to my observation, visitors almost always drop by the museum store before

they leave the museum, and in fact, it is the first place they visit to get their tickets during
 179

weekdays. However, a visitor staff member told me that community members who are not

museum-goers often do not know that the museum has at the gift store. In one of the staff

meetings that I attended, staff members were considering an option to put up a fist store open

sign or some kind of permanent advertisement on the building so people who walk or drive by

the museum can know of its existence.

Exhibition labels. During interviews with participants, many of them commented on the

museum’s labels and didactic panels. Although some found them engaging and informative,

many visitors felt that they were too long and difficult to understand. Here is an example from

one of the museum’s interpretive labels written as: “Neoclassicists rejected the precious

feminine, decadent Rococo style in favor of a return to ancient Greco-Roman ideas, which they

perceived as demonstrating such noble attributes as honor, loyalty and intelligence.” This label

was part of a special exhibition that is prepared by a local university art gallery. People from

many disciplines, including students and professors from Art History and English programs,

wrote the labels. While the labels written by people with diverse backgrounds and ages delivered

many different voices and messages to the discussion of works of art in the show, some of them

were loaded with jargon and difficult concepts. As the example above shows, if a viewer is not

familiar with the concepts and styles of Neoclassicist, Rococo style, and Greco-Roman ideas, the

whole sentence becomes difficult to understand. There was not any clear description of these

three terms in the rest of the label. A docent, Diana, expressed her frustration with the museum’s

interpretive labels. In her words, “Every sentence has three or four words in it that nobody knows

what it is, including myself, and I think I’ve read quite a bit” (Diana, personal communication,

July 27, 2012). She added that the labels are hard to read not only because of the language, but

also because they are too long, use a small font, and are single-spaced.
 180

While a number of people complained about the museum’s labels in terms of frequent use

of difficult terminology, length, and small font size, some of the labels were well received by

visitors. Several visitors whom I interviewed felt that the labels that accompanied the docent-

picked show were easy to understand with an appropriate length, usually consist of two to four

short sentences. To provide an example of the docent-picked show labels, “The eerie,

claustrophobic feeling we have when we look at this painting was created by using basic

geometric shapes and a palette of three or four colors. Those simple art elements also make us

believe we can smell a musty odor and hear a creaking floor.” This label is based on the docent’s

feelings about and response to the painting rather than art historical and aesthetic values of the

work of art.

According to Deborah Benton (1979), museum visitors spend 10-20 seconds looking at

one work of art while Falk (1982) estimates 1.5 minutes. Considering these findings, it is not

surprising that many find most of the museum labels to be too long for a relaxing museum visit.

The length of the labels along with the specialized vocabulary related to art history and aesthetics

leave some visitors feeling distanced from artwork at the Avery. There might be a disconnection

between what visitors want to read and know about a work of art and what curators or label

writers want to present about the same work. Most curators are art historians who are trained to

discuss art historical and the aesthetic value of works of art or artifacts. It is important to find a

balanced label that is intellectually challenging but not difficult to understand. Difficult concepts

and terminology can be explained in everyday language. Some people suggested that locating

self-guided materials throughout the museum and keeping labels short and succinct would

facilitate more enjoyable and informative museum visits.

 181

Programs

Most programs that are offered at the Avery focus on education. The education

department is the largest, with four full-time staff members. Despite an operating budget of only

$60,000 to $70,000 a year, its programs offer interactive activities that successfully bring many

community members into the museum on a regular basis. Programs are mostly initiated by the

Curator of Education, Mary Jane, and developed and executed by the education staff members:

Joyce, the youth and family programs coordinator; Emily, the outreach coordinator; and

Rebecca, the education assistant. While the museum has tried to cater to as many people as

possible, offering programs intended to appeal to a variety of ages, as well as cultural groups,

some of these efforts have been discontinued. In the past, the museum offered a Halloween event

for young college students and had programs designed for specific cultural groups, such as

Hispanic and Asian Indian. The museum still offers programs specifically designed to attract

college students. However, some of the programs that intended to attract cultural minority

populations, which were successful in bringing under-represented cultural groups to the museum,

ended up being one-time events without a lasting impact on patronage. Preparing special

programs that appeal to specific cultural groups is considered time-consuming and not very cost

effective for the museum to continue year after year (Marzio, 1991). Unfortunately, the visitor

demographic survey data indicates that the audiences who attended special programs did not

return to the museum for more general events and exhibitions. Marzio (1991) suggests museums

adopt a more inclusive approach in exhibitions and programming related to minority arts and

cultures by including them as equal status exhibitions rather than treating them as special.

Outreach programs. The most popular and well-known museum services are outreach

programs for K-12 children. The outreach coordinator, Emily, goes to public schools in the
 182

community to give interactive art lessons, which include art-making and discussions about art

using the museum’s collection, laptop, and projector. Her lessons are carefully designed to meet

the curriculum requirements of the two states where River City is located. The curriculum

requirements not only include visual arts education but also embrace other subject matters, such

as mathematics, science, language arts, and social studies. Some of the elementary schools in the

community do not have an arts specialist and, therefore, do not provide visual art programs at all.

Due to budget cuts, which many schools have experienced over the past couple of years, many

schools have eliminated their visual art programs. As a result, for some children, Emily’s

interactive art lessons are the only formal visual art experience that they are exposed to in the

school.

Emily’s outreach programs include facilitated art discussions and hands-on activities,

such as drawing and writing about art. In order for the children to experience authentic works of

art, she brings pieces from the actual museum collection in a suitcase specially designed to carry

artwork safely. The outreach program, which was developed by a former museum educator, has

been in operation for three years. In the first year, Emily’s predecessor saw 7,000 children and

the next year when Emily took over the program, 10,000 students took advantage of 20 different

programs. In 2011, Emily saw 14,000 students with 34 different programs. In her words, “I’m

trying to make museum part of their everyday vocabulary so it’s not just one time off thing for

children and their parents” (Emily, personal communication, June 1, 2011).

Joyce, the youth and family programs coordinator, is in charge of two outreach programs.

An outreach program, in which the museum participates, is a set of interactive presentations done

in collaboration with three other museums in the River City area—the Music Experience Center,

the Historical House Museum, and the Botanical Garden. Whoever requests this program is
 183

provided with four one-hour presentations from each institution. The museum also offers art

lessons for after-school programs in local K-12 schools. These after-school outreach art activities

are designed to supplement the public school curriculum and are inspired by the museum’s

permanent collection and special exhibitions. The activities teach students elements and

principles of art and design and creative thinking through art discussions and a variety of

materials, such as clay and soft pastels. According to a visitor services staff member, Elizabeth,

who has volunteered and worked at the museum for more than 25 years, the museum is doing a

great job with children and young adults since the new museum facility opened six years ago.

She said that she is seeing those children who benefited from the outreach programs coming

back to the museum to volunteer or do internships. According to the museum’s fall 2011

newsletter, approximately 17,000 children take advantage of these various school outreach

programs a year.

Family days. Three or four Saturdays a year, the Avery offers free admission and arts

activities for families. These free family days are sponsored by local businesses and a large

international company headquartered in River City. Although the Avery would like to have more

free family days a year, it is always challenging to find adequate sponsorship for advertising and

supplies. Free family days are popular and effective in attracting people who would not

otherwise come to the museum. While the museum’s admission is inexpensive relative to

comparable museums in large cities, it can become prohibitively expensive when three or four

family members are in attendance, adding up to $20 to $30 for a few hours of visitation. In

addition, the cost of living in River City is considerably lower than that of other large

metropolitan cities. Therefore, family days are a wonderful opportunity for local families and

members of the low-income population to enjoy the museum without any financial barriers. One
 184

of the most popular free family days was a train-themed day, when over 800 visitors enjoyed the

museum and special family activities over the course of several hours on a Saturday. Emily was

very pleased with this level of participation, saying, “Eight hundred people! It was just

unbelievable! So the community does respond. And a lot of them are first time visitors and they

bring their kids” (personal communication, June 1, 2011). However, other themes have not been

as successful, attracting only 50 visitors in one case. Clearly, identifying themes that appeal to

families must be a priority if free family day is to have the maximum possible impact.

Docent tour. Docent tours can be arranged in advance for groups and are also available

on a walk-in basis at two regular times on Thursday and Sunday. Each year, local schools bring

their fifth-grade students for a museum tour managed by docents. These students are treated to a

pre-tour visit by the docent who comes to their school before the field trip date to provide a brief

orientation to what the children will be exposed to during the tour. The schools and teachers

greatly appreciate the fact that representatives from the museum actually go out to the

community to bring people in.

One docent tour that I found to be particularly engaging is the walking tour of the

downtown Watertown area. This tour, which may involve two docents, depending on the size of

the group, focuses on educating people about the history of the town and its architectural styles.

What distinguishes this program is its expansion of the museum space to the surrounding

community and its emphasis on buildings as decorative practical art. When I participated in one

of the tours, the other participants were all from the area. They were surprised to know the

history of buildings and commerce in River City. Because they cared about and live in the

community, conversations were often very detailed, personal, and educational.

 185

I also attended an evening art talk led by a group of docents. This tour included a docent-

picked exhibition and another special exhibition about water views curated by the associate

curator, Enrika. The talk was personal and comfortable since each docent chose their favorite

work and shared why they liked the specific piece. The docents talked about color, artist,

composition, feelings, context, background, and showed artists’ portraits or other works that they

created. There were more than 30 people at the gallery on the second floor including the

presenting docents. Participants were quite interactive and wanted to share their feelings and

ideas. It was a pleasant docent tour and somewhat different because I was able to hear many

voices in one talk.

Art classes. The museum offers a variety of art classes for children and adults. I

volunteered at one of the Friday children’s art classes. The art classes were intensive, having a

variety of hands-on lessons packed in one day from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. There were two classes

going on at the same time, and they were divided into age groups. I volunteered for the older

children’s group, the elementary school level. The contract instructor was very experienced

working with children and prepared diverse art lessons for participating children, covering print-

making, drawing, painting, and design. There were three volunteers including me in the class,

providing additional help to individual students.

When classes are not in sessions, the museum’s studios are open daily for those who just

want to walk in and make art. At least one studio is set up for still life arrangements or other art-

making opportunities. The museum provides basic materials such as easels, drawing paper,

markers, and crayons. Local universities also use the studio spaces for art classes. These

university-offered classes at the museum are not usually open to the public, and the tuition each

college student pays per class is approximately $4,000 per semester. Thankfully, the museum
 186

offers a variety of adult art classes and workshops at a more reasonable rate ($40 for members/

$50 for non-members per class), including drawing, watercolor, acrylic, and jewelry making.

Several hundred people a year enjoy these adult classes and workshops.

Thursday evening at the Avery. The museum usually closes at 5 p.m. but on Thursdays,

it remains open until 9 p.m. Thursday evening is the only day of the week when the museum

café10 is open to the general public with full dinner and drink services. This evening event also

offers live music performances, docent tours, art talks, lectures, and/or movie viewings. While

the museum’s target audience for these evenings is young professionals, they tend to attract

roughly the same group of board members, retirees, docents, and museum members every week.

However, I saw a few young couples come to the evening events for date nights. The museum

tries to expand the program through more marketing involving social media such as E-blast and

Facebook. However, the program gets approximately 30 devoted fans every week.

Travel program. The museum offers travel programs to international destinations, such

as London and Paris, as well as United States cities, like New York City and Kansas City. These

trips, which are only available to museum members, offer guided visits to arts and cultural

institutions and the opportunity to experience different cultures within their native context.

International trips usually last about 10 days and cost up to $4,000 per person without meals and

special admissions. The museum provides a motor couch to transport participants to museums

and historical locations. Participants in this program include museum docents and board

members. The museum arranges the overarching structure and schedule of each trip in

consultation with a local travel agency, but itineraries provide flexibility for individual

exploration of the destination city.

10
According to Ben, the catering manager, the café is having a difficult time breaking even on Thursdays. This is
why the café is not open for other days except when there are rental services.
 187

Non-art related. The Avery also offers programs less directly related to visual arts and

art history. By combining art with something unrelated to traditional art themes, new meanings

and styles of art can be discovered. For example, in response to the terrible earthquake in Haiti,

the museum staged a charity event for the children of Haiti in collaboration with a national

charity group that strives to tackle childhood hunger. Volunteers and staff packed nutritionally

balanced meals of dried grains, meat, and vegetables for delivery to the ravaged country. More

than 150 volunteers helped to send 17,280 meals to Haiti. In addition, $3,881 was raised for the

non-profit group, which aims to prevent child hunger. Many children and people not necessarily

interested in the arts participated in the event. Coverage of this event of the local news media

resulted in good publicity for the museum. During the event, I volunteered as a drink server at

the bar and had the opportunity to talk with some of the charity event volunteers. There were

many children who had never been to the museum before and had no idea that the museum has a

Haitian art collection. Some adult volunteers informed me that this was their first time

volunteering at the Avery and that they were surprised to see how nice the museum and the

people who work there were. Although the event was not directly related to art, the fact that

Avery has a Haitian art collection established a meaningful connection between the museum and

the charity function. The museum aspires to attract more new audiences by planning similar

collaborative programs with community organizations such as the ballet, orchestra, or

environmental groups.

The museum has other programs such as scholarships for local high school students who

pursue a college degree in visual art, birthday events for children, a book club for adults, docent

training programs, and art history lectures. Approximately 30,000 or more museum participants

take advantage of at least one of the programs.

 188

Discussion

Through talking to visitors about museum exhibitions and programs, I found out that

people in the community like to experience something that can be easily understood, something

that they can relate to personally. For example, many visitors and staff members responded that

they would like to see more Midwestern regionalist art, craft, and sculpture exhibitions that are

considered less abstract and more descriptive, figurative, relevant, and practical. While some

people appreciated the museum’s interpretive labels, most visitors whom I interviewed found

them difficult to understand and heavy with jargon from the art history field. The labels almost

prevented some viewers from connecting to artwork on a more personal level. Rather, visitors

preferred the labels that accompanied the docent-picked show because the labels were short and

easy to understand with personal stories by the docents and less academic terminology. Some art

museums have adopted a more casual and engaging approach to label writing in that they are

short, easy to understand, and engage visitors. For example, the Cleveland Museum of Art’s

labels for its permanent collection consist of three or four sentences without art history jargon.

Some of the exhibition labels of the Best Practices in Museum Exhibition Writing (2010)

selected by a museum educator group, Museum-Ed, utilize questions, personal stories, and

fictional-story-writing approaches to label writing.

Community members tended to respond better to programs and exhibitions that were

more interactive and hospitable and happening beyond the walls of the museum building. For

example, the museum’s K-12 outreach programs were popular among school children and

parents who have children in the public school system in River City. Many participants told me

that community members appreciate the fact that the Avery educators go to the public schools to

give interactive lessons and expose students to visual art education, which is lacking in the River
 189

City public school system. In addition, schoolteachers appreciate when docents go to their

schools and provide a pre-visit orientation to students before their field trip to the museum for a

docent tour. Another example is the free family day. Free family days were packed with hands-

on activities and projects that families can participate in together. The museum provided snacks

and drinks for participating families as well. The environment and setting for free family days

were inviting, lively, and comfortable, which counters what most people in the community think

of the Avery: that it is a quiet and off-limit space, welcoming only a handful of people from the

community. I explain this perception of the Avery among community members in the next

section of this chapter.

Community members also responded well to events that are more related to social issues,

other types of arts, and social activities rather than programs and events that are solely about

visual art, art history, or aesthetic education. For example, the charity event for Haitian children

at the museum lobby was well attended by community members, including those who have never

been to the museum before. While the purpose of the event was to help Haitian children in need,

it successfully drew more than 150 participants and volunteers into the museum building and

providing a feeling of hospitality, which may affect the participants’ willingness to come back to

the museum with their family members at later times. Another activity that was successful was

an outdoor mural-making activity for families that took place in the baseball stadium park less

than 10 blocks from the museum. Emily, the outreach coordinator, Rebecca, the education

assistant, and two summer interns organized and executed the event. I volunteered at the event as

well. We set up a large canvas fabric against a wall and provided a number of bottles of paint and

large-scale brushes. Many adults and children participated in creating abstract, casual painting

with paint and brushes. We were able to advertise the museum’s upcoming free family day and
 190

other ongoing or upcoming exhibitions and events at the event as well. This event not only

allowed the museum to take what it has to offer beyond the walls of the museum but also infused

art-making activity as part of an everyday event and family picnic at the baseball stadium. This is

also a great way to attract new audiences who have never been to the museum. By hosting the

charity event in the art museum and connecting art-making activity at another public leisure

event, the Avery was able to expand the meaning and scope of art and art-making beyond

narrowly defined visual art, art history, and aesthetic education.

While the Avery has a variety of exhibitions and programs that are the primary means for

interacting with its visitors, this does not mean that all community members can take advantage

of these various exhibitions and programs, which can only be experienced through participation.

Some of the programs and exhibitions only appeal to a certain group of people because many

community members think that they need to be educated or have a background in visual art or art

history in order to enjoy art museum experiences. According to the museum’s visitor

demographic survey, most Avery visitors are White, female, well-educated, and older than the

average age of the population of River City. The tendency for art museums to attract more

educated, affluent people has been well documented (Falk, 1998; Fleming, 2002; Janes, 2009;

Kotler & Kotler, 1998; McClellan, 2003).

Then, there is a disconnection between the museum and a certain community population

who never visit the Avery or does not value the museum’s current offerings. For example, most

people cannot afford to participate in the travel program that provides tours to international cities

and costs approximately $4,000 per person. Although this is a relatively inexpensive way to

experience international arts scenes, the program is often criticized for being inaccessible to most

people. A number of interviewees pointed out that most people do not have the time or money to
 191

take advantage of such a program. A former staff member went so far as to call the program a

misuse of institutional resources since it consumes a great deal of staff time and benefits only a

few privileged museum members. While the museum makes revenue from this program, and

docents who have participated in the travel program(s) are better prepared to lead tours and

discussions at the Avery, it may evoke the feeling that the museum is an elitist social club, not a

public resource designed for everybody.

What are other qualities and practices that create this disconnection between the museum

and certain groups of people in the community? In the next section, I discuss how the community

perceives the Avery, in general, through examining several aspects of the museum, including

physical spaces, current museum offerings, the culture of the community, and other interrelated

aspects.

Elitist Perception of the Avery in the Community

While the museum has been an important part of the community and many people take

advantage of its diverse exhibitions, programs, and special events, people in the community have

certain perceptions about the Avery that are based on what and how the museum has interacted

with visitors and community members. The museum cannot control how people in the

community view it, but knowing how it is perceived by the majority of community members will

help the museum better attract and communicate with its visitors and potential audiences. I will

discuss several reasons for these overarching perceptions that were often discussed by

participants, including visitors, board, and staff members.

Almost all participants from the community mentioned that the Avery Art Museum is

perceived as an elitist institution. The elitist perception of museums is one of the largest

challenges that many art museums face in the United States and even worldwide. Janes (2009)
 192

argues that most world museums still cater to society’s elite, although it could be an unfair

accusation at times. Therefore, the notion of museums, especially art museums, being elitist is

prevalent in many parts of the world. Even in art museums in New York City, located in one of

the most diverse areas of the county, struggle with the elitist perception among community

members and artists (Judkis, 2011).

There are many elements that create this elitist notion of the Avery in the community.

First of all, the name Avery is often associated with private wealth, the banking business, and

elitism in the community. A board member and the director of the Chamber of Commerce in

River City, Callie, said, “It [the Avery] still carries the legacy of being very much a club of the

highbrow, of the art-loving elite of our community” (personal communication, July 11, 2011).

She continued, “It carries the unintended burden of the single biggest investor of the Avery

family and having the building named after it” (Callie, personal communication, July 11, 2011).

By talking to residents in diverse parts of the community, specifically middle- and low-income

people, who mostly reside in the west part of Watertown, Callie understands that those people

knew the Avery family’s history of banking and oftentimes not supporting small businesses.

According to Callie, when it was decided to include Avery in the name of the museum, the board

of directors and staff did not deeply research or assess how the name of the museum would affect

establishing a new brand in the long run. According to Callie, who was a good friend of the

director at the time, the board of directors spent hours arguing whether it was going to be a

museum or a center, but they never argued about whether it was going to be called the Avery or

something else. Therefore, many community members consider the museum as a private asset of

the Avery Foundation, and, therefore, have less sense of ownership when compared with other

cultural and arts institutions in town. A visitor, Donald, whom I interviewed even said, “I just
 193

came for the appreciation of the art because I have some familiarity with the owner of this

particular art museum or the founder of the museum” (personal communication, June 24, 2011).

The Avery family is not the owner of the museum or the founder of it. According to a local artist,

there was more sense of ownership from the community when the museum was a municipal

museum and the city took care of the institution.

Besides the name and original funding source of the museum, there are other factors that

lead many community members to feel that the Avery is an elitist, closed institution in spite of its

successful outreach and educational programs as well as diverse exhibitions and events. The look

of the building is one of them. In addition, this tendency is related to the culture of the

community, that is, community members fear visual art and art museums, and as a result they do

not support them enough. The museum offerings not being interactive are related to these

perceptions as well. I also describe how the Avery is perceived by other museums in the area at

the end of this section.

The New Museum Building

The museum is very large, clean, and expansive with a shiny outer appearance and has

untouchable paintings and sculptures in galleries with high ceilings and white walls. This creates

the perception that visual art is separated from people’s daily lives and strengthens the belief that

art is not part of daily life. Although the museum building is made of material that is translucent,

the cold and hard looking exterior keeps people from being comfortable visiting the museum.

The board of directors invited many architects from all over the world to submit design

ideas, and they eventually chose a world-famous architect and his firm to design the museum’s

new building. The architect’s vision was to design a museum building that could be a major

catalyst for urban revitalization of the City of Watertown. His intention was to attract diverse
 194

people to the downtown area with the new building while maintaining the traditional outline of

the old city. The completed building looks very different from the surrounding scenery. It is a

simple volumetric block enveloped by translucent green glass surfaces.

Some people find the museum building inviting but many feel that it is cold and

intimidating. For example, a visitor, Donald, told me during the interview, “I think it [the

museum building] is inviting because it’s very shiny, glittering, and I think it’s very attractive”

(personal communication, June 24, 2011). Despite the unpopular aesthetic qualities of the

building, most people in the community tend to agree that the museum building has an

impressive presence and that the Avery, referred to as the “jewel box” of the community, is

becoming the symbol of Watertown and even of River City. Some people even said the building

designed by a world-renown architect provokes the feeling of excellence.

However, the building, which appears as well-refined minimalist artwork, is perceived by

many people unfamiliar with the minimalist style as too contemporary, cold, and intimidating.

The Avery’s building is often associated with such words as “ice cube” and “lifeless cold green

building” by the community. Some non-museum-goers even thought that the museum building

was a parking garage. One of the visitors whom I interviewed felt that the appearance of the

building may actually be keeping visitors from a lower socioeconomic group away, saying, “On

the exterior, it looks very fancy and expensive. I’m somebody from the lower-middle-class . . . I

think for people with lower income, the look of the building can be one of the reasons not to

visit. The reason I hadn’t come here before was because it does look rather expensive outside”

(personal communication, May 27, 2011). A former intern told me that on a radio show about the

Avery building which was broadcast several years ago, she recalled a caller saying something
 195

like “They have this new art museum in downtown. It’s so horrible because it’s so modern”

(personal communication, May 26, 2011). Some even said that it is an eyesore.

While I did not have uncomfortable feelings about the museum’s building because of my

background visiting various museums in the world, I occasionally felt uncomfortable being in the

community and attending museum staff meetings and community events as a stranger to River

City. In Chapter Three, I discussed my uncomfortable feelings as an outside researcher in a new

environment. There were times when I had to kick myself into the museum. I thought maybe

how I felt as a stranger to the community and museum was similar to what many community

members feel about the museum’s new building. Sometimes, it takes courage to try new things.

The fact that the building only says “AVERY” in a large font followed by “ART

MUSEUM” in a much smaller font does not help attract community members into the museum

or identify what the building is for. The outside of the building does not display any information

about the museum, such as admission charges, programs, exhibitions, and what kind of amenities

that the museum has to offer. The interior of the museum was originally white, sterile, and rigid,

which caused discomfort among visitors, according to staff members. It was the architect’s

aesthetic vision and conscious decision to keep the interior clean and minimal. More than half of

the participants felt that this original aesthetic intention did not quite work with the community.

In the effort to add warmth to the gallery space, the staff added more color and furniture to soften

the spaces. Staff members still struggle to balance the tension between the original aesthetic of

the building and the needs and comfort level of visitors. In addition, many feel that the overall

design aesthetic is incongruent with the museum’s permanent collection. As a local artist and

professor, Bonnie, described, “It [the museum building] screams for contemporary art” (personal

communication, July 14, 2011).

 196

While the lobby area serves as a significant source of rental revenue for the museum,

generating even more than admission fees, a number of board members, staff, docents, and

community members criticized the lobby space for being too intimidating, overpowering, and

sterile. They also criticized the lack of policies to warm up the space. Due to cuts in personnel,

there is no longer a position for a greeter to stand in the lobby and collect admission during

weekdays. The result is that the large long black desk located in the very back of the lobby has

no human face but rather a sign that directs visitors to visit the gift store to purchase tickets.

Sometimes visitors misinterpret this sign, thinking that it directs them to “just go to the museum

store and buy something.” During my time in the museum, it was not uncommon to find visitors

wondering around the lobby area after walking through the main door, looking disoriented.

Currently, weekend greeters have to sit about 60 feet from the entrance, forcing them to

raise their voices to be heard by entering visitors. There is some discussion about how the

museum could remedy this problem and make other changes to add warmth to the lobby. As

Michael, the director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, said, “If I was superman, I’d jerk

that counter up and I would move it over close to the front door, and I would somehow make that

lobby more warm and welcoming” (Michael, personal communication, August 3, 2011). There is

a recently formed temporary committee to change the image of the lobby area at the museum.

The committee’s plans include removing the large black desk, providing more seating, installing

more works of art, and locating volunteers in the lobby closer to the main entrance using a

smaller desk. However, two board members I spoke with disagree with proposed changes to the

lobby area, stating that they are contrary to the architect’s original aesthetic vision.

When the idea to construct a new downtown building was conceived in the 1990s, the

board members and city developers at the time expected the downtown area to become more
 197

vibrant and fully developed in the near future; they envisioned a large, spectacular building

fitting right in to the bustling town center. Their hopes proved to be too optimistic. There is a

general consensus that the new building ended up being too large for its environment. The staff

is too small to properly manage the space given the small size of the visual art supporting

community. Because the community knows that the city subsidized the construction of the new

facility, a lot of people feel that it was unnecessarily over the top and lavish. Some feel

resentment towards the whole project, seeing it as a misuse of public money. Now the museum

cannot change the location or the physical building and is forced to find sufficient funding to

maintain the 120,000 square foot space as well as to maintain operations, curation, and

appropriate programming.

Fear Art—Lack of Cultural Capital

In relation to the elitist perception of the museum in the community, many participants

said that community members are intimidated to walk into an art museum because they think

they cannot understand art. A local artist and professor, Roy, said, “Most people in the

community feel that they are an idiot in an art museum so they just don’t go” (personal

communication, July 13, 2011). He described how most people would think, “Everything I do

will be wrong and people will laugh at me” (Roy, personal communication, July 13, 2011). He

commented that figuring out ways to demystify visual art and to get rid of the fear that the

community members feel about visual art and art museums is very important in order to really

encourage frequent museum visits among community members.

This is also closely related to the concept of cultural capital, “a concept associated with

Bourdieu, for whom cultural capital acts as a social relation within a system of exchange that

includes the accumulated cultural knowledge that confers power and status” (Barker, 2004, p.
 198

37). For example, a person who was exposed to more educational opportunities and museum

culture as a child tends to have the knowledge and language to talk about high culture and art,

which becomes cultural capital that is often associated with the middle- and upper-middle-

classes (Bourdieu, 1984). When people lack specialized knowledge of art history and visual

culture and a cultivated aesthetic taste (cultural capital), it becomes difficult for them to

understand or appreciate museum experiences, especially in art museums that are perceived as an

elite culture by many people (Bourdieu, 1984; Schwarzer, 2006). According to Pierre Bourdieu

(1984), cultural capital is something that can be inherited from parents and elders within the

family from the earliest days of life.

Many participants agreed that most community members fear visual art and are afraid of

being wrong or not having enough knowledge in art and art history. When they are not confident

going into an art museum or exploring visual art experiences, they will not bring their children to

the museum either. A docent, Diana, explained that when she leads a tour, some people are

terrified to say things or answer her questions because they are afraid of saying something wrong

or stupid. Some would not even answer to very simple questions such as “What colors do you

see in this painting?” These are mostly adults; kids are less afraid of making mistakes or taking

risks. Some visitors that I interviewed told me that they fear things that they are not familiar with

and that they do not want to ask stupid questions when they are not sure about things, so they just

do not talk at all. I observed one visitor who looked very uncomfortable looking at paintings, and

I interviewed her in one of the galleries. She said that she felt like she did not belong there and

did not know what to do in galleries. She was a first-time visitor to any art museum and decided

to come down to see the museum because she happened to have a free admission ticket.
 199

A director of the Alternative Theater, Jason, said that because the Avery is a premier art

museum in the area and there is a certain stigma attached, certain people in the community are

scared away from it as opposed to feeling invited to be a part of it. He told me that an art

museum is “the untouchable world” for a particular section of the community in the area. They

feel, “What am I supposed to do? Or how am I supposed to behave?” (Jason, personal

communication, June 8, 2011). Therefore, people just avoid it altogether.

The museum’s facilities manager, Bill, said that the museum is not used enough by many

people in the community because, in his words, “We are not raised on art and all that stuff

because this is a blue-collar community” (personal communication, July 21, 2011). He

emphasized that he was not taught to go to art museums as a child. He continued, “We were not

taught to look at art but if somebody teaches the art, then you have more appreciation, but we

were never taught that” (Bill, personal communication, July 21, 2011).

A retired public school teacher and current museum volunteer, Tom, used to work at a

school where its students are often from underprivileged families, living only one mile or so

away from downtown Watertown. Fifth graders make a trip to the Avery once a year, but they do

not tend to come back with their family members even though most students enjoy their initial

experience on the museum fieldtrip. Tom emphasized that these families may not have had the

opportunity to visit museums or other cultural institutions, so they do not place much value on it.

He added that going to a museum for them is a very foreign idea. In his words:

Quite often in these homes curtains are drawn, they are not looking outwards, and they

seem to be kind of trapped, happily so, in their own little tiny world. So the idea of

expanding out and trying something new is not always comfortable for them. (Tom,

personal communication, July 27, 2011)

 200

They seem to stay in their comfort zone, although cultural amenities in the downtown area are

only a couple of blocks away.

People who are exposed to museums as children tend to go to museums when they grow

up, and they tend to take their kids to museums as well (Falk & Dierking, 2000). According to

Falk and Dierking (2000), historically, underrepresented groups of people who are less

privileged in socioeconomic and educational opportunities tend to have less experience with

museums than the more affluent population. In addition, when one does not have a social

network or culture of museum-going, the person is not likely to visit a museum (Ostrower,

2005).

A first time visitor, Lilly, told me, “I grew up in a very, very small town. The closest one

[art museum] is probably about two hours away. I don’t paint and draw and, you know, I’m not

an artist at all” (personal communication, August 2, 2011). She also added that her family was

not into art and she thinks that is why she has never been to an art museum prior to her visit to

the Avery. What Bill, Lilly, and Tom describe is that many people in the community did not

have enough exposure to educational and cultural opportunities to build cultural capital as a

child, and therefore they lack the cultural capacity to appreciate visual culture. They do have

cultural capital of their own that might not be considered the kind of cultural capital that they

need in art museums in order to understand the museum content.

On the other hand, the Avery also has helped some people in the community build their

cultural capital through the museum programs and exhibitions. Frequent museum-goers and their

family members have multiple educational opportunities, being exposed to art history knowledge

and language to talk about art. In addition, the museum’s school outreach programs offer

children opportunities to develop cultural capital that could continue into their adult lives. While
 201

cultural capital cannot be obtained overnight, in the long run, through more inclusive practices,

the Avery can be a more active part of building the community’s collective cultural capital.

Small Visual Art Supporting Community

While many community members enjoy arts activities, visual art seems to be the least

appealing form of art in the River City area. For example, not many people come to the Avery

during weekdays unless there is a special event such as a free family day. I had a difficult time

finding visitors to interview on Tuesday through Friday (the museum closes on Monday).

Several participants told me that traditionally the museum did not have a huge wave of visitors,

and the museum’s curator of education, Mary Jane, who has worked in the museum for 20 years,

confirmed that the visitor number has not increased. Because the community does not have a

tradition of supporting visual art, the museum is struggling to attract new visitors, donors, and

sponsors. Some people explained that the community has vibrant visual arts scenes and has many

local artists, but probably not enough museums and galleries to show and sell their work, which

suggests that museums and galleries are not supporting local artists enough.

A local artist and professor, Bonnie, expressed her opinion, “I don’t think there’s a whole

lot of understanding about art. There’s not a lot of historical training. I just think, as an artist

from this town, it’s a very hard town to sell work and to have people support you. There’s just

not the cultural support” (personal communication, July 14, 2011). She thinks that the museum

has become more of a rich club since it opened its new facility, and the community cannot jump

into something that has a very uncomfortable price tag. Bonnie used metaphors of candy and

meat that the Avery is like meat which is very difficult to digest. On the other hand, Watertown

has a collective studio and gallery spaces in one building called the Artstown Center, which she

described as candy that is easy to pick up and melts in your mouth. The Artstown has a number
 202

of casual exhibitions and sells paintings and practical arts, such as jewelry, bags, and hats, and it

does not require fancy clothes or money to get in. Bonnie thinks “it [the community] needs to

have like a stepping stone between the candy [Artstown Center] and the meat [the Avery]”

(personal communication, July 14, 2011) because community members feel more comfortable in

the Artstown and they cannot just jump into appreciating the Avery. Bonnie suggested, “If it [the

Avery] was more of an art center or smaller museum, I think that’s what the town really needs.

Based on my experience, the Avery is not built for that” (personal communication, July 14,

2011).

According to the museum’s former director of development and current director of

marketing at the Science Museum, Josh, the community does not really appreciate often

considered “high quality” and famous artwork, such as Jackson Pollock or Monet. They would

rather see something that is relevant to the Midwest and their personal lives. They want activities

in which they can feel comfortable participating. Josh remarked, “I think that’s where the

education component is critical, and it has to be taught through [the Avery], and people have to

be invited” (personal communication, July 19, 2011). In the case of the Science Museum,

according to Josh, its programs and exhibitions fit right into public school curriculum standards,

and a lot of the programming presents popular culture that relates to local audiences.

Because the community has a small group of visual arts supporters, the support can be

even more divided among several visual arts organizations in town competing against each other

to get more users and donors. Some even claimed it is difficult to find new members of boards

because the same people who are interested in arts tend to be on several different boards already.
 203

Hands-Off

A visitor, Peter, told me that he thinks one of the things that puts a lot of people off from

the Avery is that it is hands-off physically and emotionally. He believes that there is this

invisible wall, besides the museum’s physical walls, between the museum and community. He

thinks that people want to be involved with social activities through arts, and they are not

interested in just looking at paintings on the walls anymore. Peter compared museums to

churches where people want to believe, behave, and belong to each other. He said that museums

can be new churches where people want to believe, behave, and belong to the museum. If

community members do not believe what the museum offers is valuable, do not know how to

behave comfortably around artwork and other people, and do not feel they belong to the

museum, the museum is failing to be a responsive institution in the community. Peter also said,

“The Avery might be missing all three Bs [believe, behave, and belong]. The museum tends to

cater to expensive audiences in town, not getting the community” (personal communication, May

27, 2011). According to Peter, there is this notion among community members, “Art is not really

me and I don’t really connect with it. If I have $7 then I would rather spend it for a bottle of beer

than the museum” (personal communication, May 27, 2011). Along the same line, according to

Farrell and Medvedeva’s (2010) research, most of their participants do not choose to go to

museums for leisure purposes because they think of most museums as “static places (‘places that

exhibit things’), didactic places (but not necessarily places where the learning was not fun or

engaging), and places where you had to be quiet and stand outside looking in” (p. 25).

The director of the Children’s Museum in River City, Jackie, shared her experience at the

Avery where children are not allowed to be noisy and touch anything because the museum

exhibits valuable artwork that cannot be replaced. There is a stigma following around the art
 204

museum that it is really quiet. She continued, “I remember going in to the Watertown Museum of

Art [the Avery’s former name], and the first thing you saw was the guards. It was like, hmm,

okay is everyone watching me as I watch the art or what?” (Jackie, personal communication,

July 29, 2011). This was also observed by a recent visitor who left a review on an online website,

stating there are always security guards hovering around, which made the person uncomfortable

enjoying works of art.

Another visitor, Paul, thinks that the Science Museum is more accessible and has larger

attractions for children and families than an art museum because it has the IMAX Theater and

hands-on activities. Because of the perception that the Avery has just paintings on the walls,

many people have not revisited the museum after being there once when the new building

opened in 2005. Some of the visitors did not even know that the museum has other activities and

programs to participate in and that it changes exhibitions on a regular basis. For example, a

visitor whom I interviewed told me that she has never heard that the museum offers educational

programs for children and adults or free events for families. Elizabeth Merritt (2010) argues that

museums have to be places where many people want to hang out rather than being places for

people to check off on their life list or just destinations for taking their out-of-town guests.

Perception among Arts and Cultural Institutions

According to my interviews with the staff from other museums in the River City area, the

Avery is seen as a closed institution by other cultural and educational institutions. While other

museums and arts organizations tend to collaborate with each other and have a joint membership

programs, the Avery is often treated as something different, closed, and elitist. For example, the

Children’s Museum, the Zoo, and the Science Museum have a joint membership together and

recommend each other to their visitors. The director of the Children’s Museum, Jackie, told me
 205

that the Avery is not as relevant to the age group they target while the Zoo and Science Museum

are for slightly older children so they help each other. When I contacted the director of the

Science Museum for an interview, she answered that she did not want to participate in my study

because she knows nothing about the Avery. This was the only response I received from her after

sending three emails and trying to set up an interview. For me, this highlights the disconnection

between the Science Museum and the Avery. The former Avery staff member and current

director of marketing at the Science Museum, Josh, thinks, “The Avery and the Science Museum

compete probably more than they should” (personal communication, July 19, 2011). According

to Josh, the last collaboration that the Avery and Science Museum had was three or four years

ago (as of summer of 2011).

Discussion

The elitist perception of the Avery in the community is formalized through many aspects.

First of all, the esthetic and physical qualities of the museum building and gallery spaces are not

considered inviting and create an emotional barrier or discomfort that prevent community

members from visiting freely. Considering the fact that the outer appearance of the museum is

the first thing that community members see before they actually come into the museum and

experience its services, the building acts as a powerful representation of the museum even

though the museum is much more than just a shiny building. The elitist and unpopular aesthetic

qualities of the building intensify the fearful feeling toward visual art and art museums among

community members, implying that visual art is something that is inaccessible and distanced

from everyday lives. Farrell and Medvedeva (2010) also demonstrate in their study that many

people feel intimidated and excluded from museum cultures and that they do not think what

museums offer is relevant to their personal lives. In addition, many community members think
 206

that they need to be educated in order to understand visual art. As many River City community

members shared, most people do not feel that they have sufficient knowledge or background

(cultural capital) to understand museum offerings. Considering that only 20% of the River City

population has a bachelor’s degree or higher, only a fraction of the population tends to support

the museum and be frequent museum visitors. The demographic information of the Avery

visitors, which I shared at the end of the first section of the chapter, supports this tendency.

Even if community members come into the museum and experience museum exhibitions

and programs, some still feel disconnected from the museum culture because most exhibitions

and programs are considered hands-off. The museum has signs, saying “do not touch,” in every

galley rather than a sign of “ask us if you have any questions.” While the museum has interactive

programs, lectures, workshops, and events, most museum exhibitions are hands-off. Many

visitors wanted to be more actively involved with and participate in exhibitions and programs

that are relevant to their lives and the surrounding environments. Families look for something

that can be both entertaining and educational for their children and other family members. The

elitist and closed perception of the Avery among other arts and cultural organizations in the

community echoes what many community members feel about the Avery.

In order to diminish the fear toward visual art and make the museum a more

comfortable place, the museum has to let community members know through proper

advertising, marketing, and educational programs that all people in the community can

experience the Avery. The museum has a written family guide for certain exhibitions, but it

may not be sufficient. The museum could provide free educational programs on how to use

the museum resources with family members and children without a guide person or
 207

specialized knowledge, which may open up some people’s minds. This also could solve the

problems of some people feeling that they do not know what to do in museum galleries.

It is also important to explore ways to find out what the community wants to experience

at the museum and why they do not come to the museum. The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston

conducted intensive visitor studies and surveys and hired a public relations company and a

research firm to find out why people in some Houston communities do not visit the museum.

This research helped the museum to revise its existing programs to meet the needs and interests

of those who were not frequent museum visitors (Schneider, 1998). In addition, staff members at

the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston collaborated with Houston community members to create

exhibitions and programs together that became personally important to participants (Schneider,

1998).

Based on conversations and interviews with participants, I suggested several reasons why

some people do not feel comfortable at the museum. However, this is not enough. Continuing

visitor and non-visitor studies need to be pursued in order to better accommodate diverse

community members and attract new audiences. From my study, community members in River

City would like to experience something that is active and relevant to their lives and culture in

the Midwest. The Avery can adopt this perspective to create exhibitions and programs. After all,

the museum’s mission is to bring art and people together and to benefit the lives of community

members through the power of art. The museum world needs to find ways to empower

community members so that their voice can be heard and reflected in museum practices at

various levels (Lavine & Karp, 1991).

 208

Summary and Reflection

A perspective that all people from the community can experience visual art at the Avery

is a minority view. One visitor even said that not many people can understand fine art and that

those who do not understand art should not come to the museum. The majority view, as I

discussed, is an elitist perception of the Avery among community members and their distanced

attitude toward visual art experience in general. The elitist perceptions and elements that

influence these perceptions in this section are directly related to the reasons why some people do

not go to the Avery. First, the widely held belief that the Avery is for a handful of people who

are wealthy and educated, and, second, the culture of the community not promoting and

supporting visual art are major reasons for some community members not to use the museum.

Some pointed out these elitist perceptions of the Avery are what the community really feels

about the Avery, and these perceptions might not be inaccurate. In other words, it is a feeling that

the community gets from the Avery’s overall practice. The museum might be creating these

perceptions by providing programs and exhibitions that only appeal to the wealthy White

population of the community. According to Lavine and Karp (1991), “every museum exhibition,

whatever its overt subject, inevitably draws on the cultural assumptions and resources of the

people who make it” (p. 1). This also means that there are always other views and methods to

create exhibitions and related programs that can be explored by multiple cultural, socioeconomic,

and political perspectives. As one participant said, the museum is not really for everybody if one

counts homeless people who live in shelters in the downtown a couple blocks from the museum.

Through museum practice including museum exhibitions and programs, the Avery has

been perceived as an elitist institution that does not seem to open to all people in the community.

The content of the programs and how exhibitions and educational programs are executed and
 209

introduced to visitors necessarily influence how most community members view the museum in

general. Some of the museum’s interpretive labels, travel programs to international cities, and

visual art and art historical content of most exhibitions and programs are some of the reasons that

the Avery tends to attract only certain groups of people: wealthy and well-educated members of

the community and school children. The director of development, Reta, said, “There still is a lot

of feeling in the community that the Avery is inaccessible to people and that it’s kind of

foreboding that you kind of have to put on a suit and a tie to go in to look at the art” (personal

communication, May 19, 2011). She told me that there is real lack of awareness in the

community about how much outreach the museum does and how many different people the

museum’s programs influence. In her words, “There is still that perception out there that we’re

just this museum with art hanging on the walls and that’s it” (Reta, personal communication,

May 19, 2011). The director of security, Scott, voiced his opinion, “They [community members]

are kind of intimidated by the art museum because they’re thinking it’s just for a bunch of rich,

educated people and it’s their own little social club” (personal communication, June 23, 2011).

While the elitist perception could be an unfair accusation, a docent remarked that there

always will be an element of elitism associated with the Avery because there always will be

people whose cultural priority is not related to visual art. For example, she referred to criticism in

the local paper about the City of Watertown putting up sculpture and spending money to beautify

the city with art. Some people do not believe that art can enrich people’s lives, and for those with

lower incomes, buying food and paying rent could be their priorities.

Jackie, the director of the Children’s Museum, suggested that the Avery has to find ways

to deliver the message to the community that the Avery is your museum, it offers fun activities

for families and children, and its collection belongs to the community. Farrell and Medvedeva
 210

(2010) also suggested that in order for museums to be more active and relevant places in the

community, they need to find ways to be more community-based, informal, and communicative.
 211

CHAPTER SEVEN: THE WORK CULTURE OF THE AVERY ART MUSEUM

So far, in Chapters Four, Five, and Six, I have discussed how the Avery Art Museum is

related to the River City community and how the museum’s exhibitions and programs are

connected to perceptions of the museum among community members. On the other hand,

Chapter Seven concerns the somewhat disconnected and messy work culture of the Avery. Staff

members and surrounding environments create the Avery’s work culture; influencing aspects

include communication style and systems, communication challenges, and personal dynamics

among staff members. Staff members sometimes described the Avery’s work culture as

disconnected and non-collaborative. Work culture affects how the museum staff members work

with each other and how they create exhibitions and programs. “The process of choice . . . leads

to action” (Simon, 1997, p. 1). In other words, how the Avery staff members communicate and

work with each other to make decisions influences how staff members execute exhibitions,

programs, and other plans. For example, when staff members are involved with certain initiatives

from the outset, and their input is reflected, they are more likely to understand the plan and

commit to it with better results (Handy, 1993; Setterberg & Schulman, 1985).

While the Avery partly follows the mechanical communication style that is top-down and

uni-directional, described in Chapter Two under the Communication Systems section, the Avery

is an organization that is complex, has a complicated work culture, and is continuously changing.

In this cultural approach, also described in Chapter Two, communication is an ongoing activity

and can be a means to create a more efficient work culture at the Avery.

In order to draw a picture of the Avery’s internal work culture in this chapter, I mainly

focus on 1) the museum’s internal communication systems and styles, including

 212

board/committee communication and meetings as well as various staff and department meetings

and 2) tensions and dynamic relationships among staff members and departments.

Internal Communication System

Internal communication is an important function in organizations, and it plays an

essential role in connecting all members of an organization to work together toward maintaining,

developing, and achieving institutional goals (Guetzkow, 1965). Whatever structure,

management system, or leadership style an organization has, an organization is a cultural and

organic place where human beings interact with each other and create a work culture together

(Senge, 2006). Therefore, the cornerstone to make an organization work efficient and cohesive is

open, informal, interdepartmental, and interdisciplinary communication (Peters & Waterman,

1982). If this happens, different ideas and innovation can flourish; different ideas, perspectives,

and innovative thinking among staff members can be shared in a multi-directional way allowing

the multiple intelligences of all staff members to flourish. Farnell (1984) said that museums

would benefit greatly if they paid more attention to their internal communication system and

work culture among museum staff members about policies, strategic plans, developments, and

more.

When an organization is large and has closed hierarchies, it tends to have more indirect

communication in forms such as memorandum, reports, and mails (Barnard, 1938; Mintzberg,

1979). On the other hand, a small organization with a relatively flat organizational structure

tends to have more direct communications through face-to-face meetings (Mintzberg, 1979). The

Avery has a small group of staff members and its hierarchy has only two or three layers.

Therefore, most of the communication is done in face-to-face meetings, although written meeting

summaries and minutes are used for information distribution and staff members use email,
 213

telephone, and casual conversation to communicate with one another. The director of marketing

and membership, Allison, said that email is not always an effective way of communication

because people tend to skim over and forget about them. However, email is often used to

distribute information that needs immediate attention from staff members, such as to summon

emergency staff meetings or notify about the cancelation of meetings. Face-to-face meetings are

considered the most effective way to accomplish many tasks, although ill-prepared meetings can

be time-consuming (Doyle & Straus, 1976). I focus on face-to-face communication of the Avery

in this section, such as board and staff meetings that include briefings, reporting, dialogue,

brainstorming, and casual conversation.

Meetings are very common organizational communication events, and they are prime

vehicles for facilitating mutual adjustment (Doyle & Straus, 1976; Fulk & Collins-Jarvis, 2001;

Mintzberg, 1979). A meeting means “the act of gathering together for a limited period of time for

the purpose of communication” (Fulk & Collins-Jarvis, 2001, p. 625). There are different types

and purposes of meetings: problem-solving, decision-making, planning, feedforward (status

reporting and new information presentations), feedback (reacting and evaluating), and

combination meetings (Doyle & Straus, 1976). Most board and staff meetings at the Avery are

problem-solving, decision-making, planning, and feedforward while the feedback function is

sometimes mixed in with other types of meetings. In discussing each staff meeting, I will use

these different meeting types to identify purposes of staff meetings at the Avery.

Discussion of the Avery’s internal communication and work culture is based on

information gathered through observations and interviews in the summer of 2011, so it does not

represent a year-round pattern. I first present a table of the Avery board and staff meetings,
 214

summarizing frequency, duration, chairperson, functions, tasks, and participants of each meeting

held at the Avery (See Table 1).

Type Frequency Duration Chairperson Functions Tasks Participants

Full board Bimonthly Two The chair of Decision-making Discuss addressed 15-21 board
hours the board Planning issues and members (some
Problem- solving concerns in board members
Feedforward committee join through
meetings and conference calls),
other staff CFO, Ed; the
meetings, such as director of
exhibitions, development,
acquisition policy, Reta; and the
programming, and administrative
development assistant, Karen
strategies (see
Appendix C for
details of agenda)

All-staff Monthly An hour The CFO and Feedforward Provide staff a All full-time staff
acting director, brief overview of members and one
Ed ongoing or part-time staff
upcoming member,
museum Elizabeth who
programming, acts as a mentor
exhibitions, and for other visitor
operations services staff

Depart- Weekly An hour The CFO and Problem- solving Converse with All department
ment head acting director, Planning each other in heads, including
Ed Feedforward order to create a the CFO and
Decision-making more cohesive set acting director,
of programming Ed; the director
and exhibitions, of security, Scott;
development the facility
strategies, manager, Bill;
marketing efforts, the director of
and other efforts museum services,
that lead to Carol; the
achieving the director of
mission of the development,
museum Reta; the curator
of education,
Mary Jane; the
registrar, Ted;
and the associate
curator, Enrika

Education Biweekly An hour The curator of Planning Discuss planning, The curator of
education, Decision-making creation, and education, Mary
Mary Jane Problem solving execution of all Jane; the
educational outreach
programs that can coordinator,
 215

be offered to the Emily; the

public on a timely education
manner in relation assistant,
to museum Rebecca; and the
exhibitions youth and family
programs
coordinator,
Joyce
Develop- Biweekly An hour The director of Planning Improve the The director of
ment development, Problem-solving museum’s current development,
Reta Decision-making development Reta; the director
efforts, find ways of marketing and
to attract membership,
community-based Allison; the
donations, and director of
come up with corporate and
more effective foundation
development relations, James;
strategies that can the director of
sustain the museum services,
museum Carol; and the
CFO and acting
director, Ed
Marketing Biweekly An hour The director of Planning Develop ways to The director of
marketing and Decision-making make the Avery marketing and
membership, Problem-solving more visible in membership,
Allison the community Allison, the
and let director of
community development,
members know Reta; the CFO
what the Avery and acting
offers them director, Ed; the
associate curator,
Enrika; the
registrar, Ted;
the director of
museum services,
Carol; and the
outreach
coordinator,
Emily
Event Biweekly An hour The director of Feedforward Allow staff The director of
museum members who museum services,
services, Carol attend the meeting Carol; the
to pay attention to facilities
what is going on manager, Bill;
at the museum the director of
two weeks in security, Scott;
advance so that the catering
programs and manager, Ben;
events can be as and the
smooth as preparator,
possible without Jessica
any conflicts and
safety concerns
 216

Security Biweekly An hour The director of Feedforward Keep the contract The director of
museum security unit on museum services,
services, Carol the same page as Carol; the
the museum director of
security, Scott;
and one or two
security staff
members

Table 1. The Avery Art Museum’s board and staff meetings.

Board and Committee Communication

While every non-profit board has different roles depending on its mission, most would

agree that the two major roles are governance and stewardship (Suchy, 2004). Governance is a

responsibility carried by board members “to protect the long-term future of the museum and to

ensure that it fulfills its obligations to stakeholders” (Suchy, 2004, p. 132). Stewardship means

the museum’s right “to manage its business balanced with an obligation to the public” (Suchy,

2004, p. 132). More specifically, non-profit boards bring planning, management, and program

expertise to an organization and are often responsible for fundraising, fulfilling the mission,

ensuring the quality of management, planning fiscal and legal operations, approving budgets,

monitoring overall programs and services, hiring directors, electing new board members, and

keeping themselves efficient (Seltzer, 2001). They are not an advisory body but an important

governing body. According to Seltzer (2001), the stewardship, leadership, and ability to involve

others enable organizations to accomplish their vision and mission. Mintzberg (1979) explains

that board members perform their roles and responsibilities through regularly scheduled,

permanent board and committee meetings and task force meetings, which are somewhat

temporary and ad hoc.

As discussed in Chapter Five, the Avery’s full board meets six times a year. The

executive committee is a subset of the full board and meets during alternate months. All

committees also meet once every two months and include senior staff members. Community
 217

members who are not on the board are involved with most committees except full board,

executive, and finance committee meetings. The museum’s permanent committees are the

executive, finance, development, education and outreach, and acquisition and exhibition

committees. The museum established special task forces to search for a new director and to

improve the appearance of the lobby in the summer of 2011. Committee meetings are set up in a

similar manner as board meetings. The functions and composition of different committee

meetings are explained in the Committees section in Chapter Five under Governing Authority

and Department/Staff Structure.

The full board tends to meet after other committee meetings so that the discussion,

concerns, and proposals from other committee meetings can be addressed and decisions made in

full board meetings. Karen, the administrative assistant, maintains board and committee meeting

minutes on the museum’s server. In this way, the content, discussion, and decisions of each

meeting can be shared by staff members and board members who are either not part of certain

committees or missed meetings. As explained in Chapter Five, however, board members are

volunteers and most of them have full-time jobs. Therefore, it is challenging for board members

to get deeply involved with standing meetings, museum practices, and events on a regular basis.

However, it is the board’s obligation not only to donate money and fundraise, but also to donate

time and energy (Seltzer, 2001).

Communication in board and committee meetings sometimes is less than productive.

Because, according to one high ranking staff member, what often happens at these meetings is

that they spend too much time getting board members up to speed on what is going on, and

therefore discussing goals and strategic plans to move forward falls on the shoulders of staff

members at the end of the meeting. Even though there is a prepared meeting agenda for board
 218

members to review before the meeting, the Avery might need more thorough pre-meeting

preparation. According to Seltzer (2001), it is essential that the agenda of the board meeting and

background information should be shared among board members ahead of the actual meeting

and pre-discussed among them through email or phone conversations. In Seltzer’s (2001) words,

“If a board finds itself focusing on details rather than major policy issues, something is awry” (p.

59).

There is a communication disconnection and lack of interaction between the board and

staff members. Most staff members, except some senior level positions, said that they usually do

not communicate and work with board members. In addition, as I discussed in Chapter Five,

some senior level staff members mentioned that some of the board members do not understand

how the museum functions as a visual art educational institution. In most museums,

organizational structure is hierarchical, having the board and executive director as the governing

body, while the rest of the staff do not participate in the governing process (Suchy, 2004).

Therefore, the Avery’s situation is considered common in the non-profit sector. However, some

museums strive to incorporate a collective leadership and governing style that includes all staff

members. For example, the former director the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Marzio,

encouraged active communication and interaction among trustees and staff members through

creating a contract between them based on “commitment to a radical idea: ‘we are all part of

governance for the museum’” (Suchy, 2004, p. 133).

This communicational disconnection and lack of interaction between the board and staff

members might be related to the reason why most museums and non-profit organizations in

Canada and the United States tend to have communicational conflict between their boards and

staff members. Most non-profit organization or museum boards are made up of affluent, White
 219

males with business and law backgrounds (Dickenson, 1994; Tucker, 1992). These board

members may not sufficiently understand museums’ abstruse educational mission and goals and

intangible products (e.g., programming and events) (Dickenson, 1994). While business

profitability is measurable by numbers, arts and cultural organizations’ profitability cannot be

solely measured in the same manner (Sukel, 1978). In museums, measurement of success and

profitability can be based on academically sound exhibitions or engaging programs. Quality is

more important than quantity in museum practices. Therefore, at museums in general, most

senior level staff members complain that board members are uninformed and uninterested while

board members argue that directors and senior level staff members are unrealistic with few

management skills (Dickerson, 1994). This disconnection comes from misunderstanding and

lack of communication and lack of systems thinking that helps one to understand the complex

interrelationships of the matter. It could be that museum staff and board members blame each

other for the problem that was created by all involved people and related circumstances. Senge

(2006) says “In mastering systems thinking, we give up the assumption that there must be an

individual, or individual agent, responsible” (p. 78). Open communication, performance

evaluation, and systematic trustee and staff training could help remedy communicational

disconnection between the board and museum staff (Seltzer, 2001; Suchy, 2004).

Internal Staff Meetings

The museum has a number of staff meetings: all-staff, department head, education,

development, marketing, event, security, and exhibition and programming, and summaries of

meeting details are found in Table 1. All meetings except the exhibition and programming

meeting were regularly scheduled although there were some changes depending on staff

situations.
 220

Each department tends to have its own meeting that does not require staff members from

other departments to attend; some meetings are more open than others. For example, the

education meeting was perceived as closed by other staff members as Reta, the director of

development, said, “Right now education still sort of develops their own stuff on their own”

(personal communication, May 19, 2011). I was able to sit in only one education meeting while I

was allowed to sit in on other staff meetings multiple times. When I asked Mary Jane, the curator

of education, if I could attend her education staff meeting, she first responded with the question

of how I knew about the meeting, which was not on the schedule. While she let me stay in the

meeting, I felt uncomfortable as if I was not invited at all.

The development/marketing department has separate development and marketing

meetings but both meetings tend to be more open to staff members from other departments.

There was a consensus among several staff members that both development and marketing are

very much related to the functions and tasks of other museum departments. I was not able to go

to any exhibition and programming meetings as they were all canceled while I was there.

However, according to interviews with the staff, members from a variety of departments often

attend exhibition and programming meetings.

Event and security meetings fall under museum services department. While events

meetings are often well attended, security meetings are mostly like a conversation between

Carol, the director of museum services, and Scott, the director of security. Facility management

does not have an official meeting that is open to other staff members, but Bill, the facilities

manager, and John, the facilities assistant, share what is going on in their department with the

rest of the museum staff through all-staff, department head, and event meetings. Since most

visitor services staff members are part-time, Julie, the store manager or Elizabeth, a visitor
 221

services member who attends all-staff meetings occasionally, usually fills them in with what is

going on in the museum in general through written memos and occasional meetings.

Although the museum does not have a written rule to exclude certain staff members from

certain meetings, there is an invisible boundary of who attends what meetings, which is related to

the museum’s somewhat hierarchical organization structure. While most people recognize that

hierarchies are inevitable in organizations of any size (Handy, 1993) and that they are

advantageous in terms of fast decision-making process and having a highly specialized

workforce (Setterberg & Schulman, 1985), the trend in the museum management and leadership

is to move to open, participatory, and consultative structure (Moore, 1994). According to Janes

(2009), a hierarchical business model with a lone director in charge of major decision-making

that most museums adopted destroys the link of genuine communication and collaboration.

On one hand, time constraints prevent some staff members from attending meetings.

According to Doyle and Straus (1976), most people spend 35 to 50% of their working time in

meetings. Attending every staff meeting could use up the staff working time on daily tasks that

need to be done in a timely manner. In addition, if there are too many people in a meeting that is

scheduled for major decision-making in such matters as finances and legal issues, this would

reduce the productivity and efficiency of the process. Perhaps, it would be inappropriate for all

staff members to attend board or committee meetings that are not related to their departmental or

individual roles. On the other hand, when communication is not active and interdepartmental,

limited resources and person power cannot be effectively utilized to achieve this collective goal:

the Avery becomes a relevant visual art educational institution for the community, which is also

implied in the mission statement of the Avery. For example, two groups, the education

department and the rest of the museum, conduct marketing efforts, which could result in
 222

redundancy. In addition, while the education department develops most educational programs,

staff members from other departments also come up with programs and event ideas that are not

so much related to visual art education but equally valuable, such as programs that are related to

environmentalism or charity work. The fact that the museum has two different meetings on

programming—the education department meeting and the exhibitions and programming

meeting—demonstrates this separation. When a program is not related to visual art education,

other departments, such as development/marketing or registration/curatorial, end up owning the

program and executing it. One staff member explained that they use the word own to describe

when other departments other than the education department develop and execute a program. In

addition, several staff members held an ad hoc meeting to discuss education programming that is

not approved by the head of the education department.

According to my participants, this somewhat fragmented communication system and

redundancy in planning efforts sometimes waste staff time and financial resources. Ed, the CFO

and the acting director, said that sometimes each department makes decisions without the benefit

of input from other departments. He added that this tendency leads to less successful museum

practices and programming. In his words, “It doesn’t allow us to put all the resources behind a

certain initiative” (Ed, personal communication, July 13, 2011). Other museums, such as the

Glenbow Museum in Calgary, Canada and the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston confronted similar

problems and solved them by creating an exhibition/education team that included staff members

from all museum departments to foster efficient communication and to develop cohesive

museum services (Conaty & Carter, 2005; Schneider, 1998).

 223

Tensions and Dynamic Relationships among Staff Members

There has been tension among staff members and departments at the Avery. Due to the

lack of consistent leadership and clear communication, each staff member and department has

worked on their own without sufficient collaborative teamwork, which has intensified existing

tension among staff members and departments at the Avery, in turn, causing more

communication confusion and unnecessary contentious politics. Such individual and

departmental tensions and conflicts are common in many cultural and educational institutions. In

fact, they are inevitable if there is more than one person involved. The former director of

development and current marketing director at the Science Museum, Josh, stated that there were

struggles in terms of communication caused by individual tensions at the Avery; however, it is

not unique to the Avery as he finds these tensions at the Science Museum and other museums

through talking to peers at professional conferences. While good ideas may spring from

discussions and debates among people who have different perspectives and educational and

cultural backgrounds, exacerbated tensions and conflicts could harm the entire institution.

The tension among staff members and departments affects how staff members work as a

team, especially in the curatorial and education departments. As I discussed in Chapter Six,

according to many staff members, the education department does not frequently collaborate with

the curatorial department, including registration, although museum educational programs are

heavily focused on exhibition themes. This tendency is found in other art museums because

traditionally caring for objects and caring for visitor learning and meaning-making were

considered two different roles of museums (Low, 1942; Silverman & O’Neill, 2004).

Different working styles and personalities may have influenced the tension between the

education and curatorial departments at the Avery. According to most staff members, some
 224

members of education and curatorial departments refuse to work together and do not even talk to

one another. These different working styles and personalities among staff members and internal

conflicts caused by them are not addressed enough at the Avery. In addition, these interpersonal

issues are not clearly and honestly communicated among the involved individuals, which leads to

even more troublesome communication challenges and confusion. Lencioni (2004) argues that

these issues should be addressed in staff meetings and discussed honestly among staff members.

Most leaders tend to avoid addressing uncomfortable interpersonal issues, but when these are

ignored, it becomes more difficult to tackle and the entire organization can be inefficient

(Lencioni, 2004).

Some staff members said that it is because of physically divided office spaces with

curatorial staff on the first floor and education, development, and other administrative offices on

the second floor. According to Thomas J. Allen (1997), the probability for communication

decreases as separation distance among staff members and their office spaces become larger. For

example, if people are more than 10 meters apart, the probability of communicating at least once

a week is only about 8 or 9% as opposed to 25% at 5 meters (Peters & Waterman, 1982).

Therefore, staff members do not have many opportunities to talk to each other except when they

have staff meetings or converse via email or phone. The museum’s former director, Ken, said

that the divided office spaces are one of the major factors that discourage a more effective

communication system and collaboration among departments and staff members. Ken

mentioned,

It [divided office spaces] is a stupid design. What happens is that the people who are

downstairs in the basement [technically the first level] start to develop isolation sickness
 225

and they start to speculate about things and upstairs as well. I mean, I would never

separate core staff in such a way. (personal communication, June 20, 2011)

These separate office spaces could be amplifying the existing tensions among staff members and

departments, especially between the education and curatorial departments.

The former director, Ken, said most people are not trained to work together, and in order

to encourage teamwork at the Avery, staff members need more professional training and need to

work at it. In his words:

Working with other people isn’t natural for a lot of people. People are more competitive

than collaborative, which I think is unfortunate because I think organizations like

museums need teamwork. The issue is that you have to compromise your standards in

order to work together for the greater good. (Ken, personal communication, June 20,

2011)

Karen, the administrative assistant, agreed with Ken that staff members work for the

same purpose after all, so they have to find ways to work together to accomplish what needs to

be done for the Avery.

The outreach coordinator, Emily, suggested that staff members have dialogue on a

regular basis not just in meetings. Dialogue is a form of communication that is especially useful

in creating new ideas and developing active, creative collaboration (Bohm, 1996).

Communication in meetings can be very brief and superficial, and meetings can become so

routine that they are sometimes not taken seriously. Emily believes that having a new director of

development, Reta, who is geared to working with other staff members and departments as a

team can be a great start for more collaboration and dialogue among staff members and

departments. In fact, according to Emily, new dialogue is already happening between

 226

departments since Reta got on board. Emily said that some people do not like to explore new

ideas and perspectives so they like to stick with what has worked. However, in her opinion, “Just

because it works doesn’t mean you can’t make it better” (Emily, personal communication, June

1, 2011). Cohesive and relevant museum practices that would benefit the Avery can come from

collaboration and teamwork among staff members.

The collective work of an organization is like an integrated, endless chain (Lencioni,

2002). When one link of the chain or network is broken, it affects how the rest of the chain

functions. An organization is the same way. When a single dysfunction is allowed to flourish, it

will influence the rest of the organization and the work culture among involved people

(Lencioni, 2002). This concept is closely related to the systems theory or thinking that

organizations are like open systems in that all elements of a system affect each other and they are

part of larger environments (Senge, 2006). A system is more effective and efficient when it has

as many connections and relationships as possible with involved elements. A tapestry shows a

clearer picture and is stronger when its connected fibers are all tightly woven. However, creating

tighter and intimate relationships takes hard work and collective efforts as a well-made tapestry

needs a well-trained set of eyes, hands, and minds of masters. Lencioni (2002) argues that

productive teamwork and efficient communication require high levels of discipline and

persistence among staff members.

Summary, Discussion, and Reflection

According to my participants, the internal communication system and work culture at the

Avery have improved over time since the museum became privatized. However, many said that

the museum’s communication system and culture could be better and more efficient, while some

said the Avery does not have a strong system and pleasant work culture in place. According to
 227

Joyce, youth and family programs coordinator, because of the lack of efficient communication

system, it is almost impossible to pass the same message from one end of the room to the other.

Because the museum did not have a leader long enough to structure or create an effective

communication system, the system is well described as a maze. In her words, “It’s like a game

you play with the wooden platform that has holes in different places and you have that ball

bearing. That’s sort of what it’s like here. So sometimes it drops and sometimes it gets to the

end. That’s the best way I can describe it” (Joyce, personal communication, June 6, 2011).

As far as collaboration goes in close relation to the communication system, the staff

members from different departments do not tend to work with each other as a team. Although

communication and collaboration within each department are stronger than interdepartmental

ones and casual conversations about work among staff members are common, many staff

members admitted that they tend to work in their own silos. Silos divide departments and people

who are supposed to work together as members of the same team (Lencioni, 2006). Sometimes

departmental politics or divisional rivalry creates these silos, making people work against one

another (Lencioni, 2006). According to Lencioni (2006), this silo phenomenon is “one of the

most frustrating aspects of life in any sizable organization” (p.175).

In addition, there are on-going tensions between the curatorial and education

departments. There is always a struggle between education and curatorial departments in

museums in general, and the Avery was not an exception. Curators tend to work for accolades of

their peers, and their work tends to be very academic. A former staff member sometimes felt that

the curators were not interested in caring about the public and that they were presenting a show

for their academic peers rather than for the public. The struggles between the two departments

sometimes generated resentment among staff members and destruction of professional and
 228

personal relationships. The former staff member said that interdepartmental communication and

cooperation, which is critical, did not exist while he was at the Avery. As documented by

Silverman and O’Neill (2004), this tendency between curators and educators is not unique to the

Avery because traditionally caring for objects and caring for visitor learning and meaning-

making were considered two different roles of museums. Traditionally, museums divided roles

into several departments, and the educational role of museums was added as an additional

department after they established curatorial and registration departments (Low, 1942). Therefore,

the educators’ role was considered less important than that of curators caring for collections

(Low, 1942; McClellan, 2003).

The registrar, Ted, shared his experience at another museum he worked for before he

came to the Avery. In his old job, education and curatorial staff were in one department as a team

and all exhibitions were meant to be educational. However, at the Avery, he feels that museum

educators are separate from museum curators and other museum professionals. Ted also

observed this tendency in the field of museums in general. For example, the AAM, the largest

museum association in the United States, has separate subcommittees of different museum

professions, such as director, educator, curator, registrar, etc., and provides separate meetings

and sessions for those professions at its annual conferences. According to Ted, this divisive

culture causes each museum profession to feel more comfortable in their own area of expertise

and not to pursue conversations beyond it to gain new perspectives and inside information from

other professions.

While divided office spaces were detected as a barrier to free communication and

collaboration among staff members, some would not want to talk to one another because of

issues related to different personalities and working styles, even if the Avery’s staff members
 229

work in the same office space on the same floor. These interpersonal conflicts and culture of

exclusion cannot be addressed and enhanced unless involved staff members all work together to

make changes. Making efforts to reverse this culture of isolation would help the entire museum

to accomplish its mission and goals. According to Genoways and Ireland (2003), the

relationships between museum staff members and their practice as a whole is directly related to

the museum’s ability to fulfill its mission. In other words, how staff members and departments

work affects how the museum as a whole presents exhibitions and programs that are experienced

by visitors. Lencioni (2012) argues that an organization with a lot of communicational and

personal conflicts and lack of collaboration could waste resources and time, decrease

productivity, and lead to frequent employee turnover. Lencioni (2012) calls this type of

organization inefficient, and its internal problems necessarily leak beyond the walls of the

organization. Likewise, if the museum staff members at the Avery do not efficiently

communicate with each other and do not work with other departments as a team, their programs

and exhibitions, marketing and development efforts, and other museum outreach strategies and

services could end up fragmented and not cohesively related. Therefore, the Avery’s internal

communication system and work culture influence how the museum interacts with its visitors,

potential audience, and other cultural and educational institutions. The Museum of Fine Arts,

Houston was able to foster great teamwork among its large staff through cross-departmental

workshops and training programs (Schneider, 1998).

The internal communication system of the Avery that is critical in developing the

museum’s main services of educational programs, exhibitions, and special events is also

transferred to the museum visitors who view the exhibitions and participate in programs. When

visitors perceive that museum offerings are not consistent or do not see their feedback reflected
 230

in the museum’s practice, they perceive the disconnection in the museum communication system

and work culture. A one-time visitor might not perceive that, but the more the visitors are

involved with the museum, the better they will be able to understand the system. For example,

many visitors asked for the wireless Internet and an inviting, warm lobby area at the museum. It

has been six years (as of summer of 2011) since the museum opened its new building but these

requests have not been met. In addition, visitors’ request to open the museum’s library to the

public has not happened. In fact, the new library was never open to the public since its new

founding in 2005. Museum volunteers and docents who have been involved with the museum for

several years know that occasionally things are not communicated well at the museum. Museum

Studies program students perceived it as well when their well-intended museum visitor survey

project was delayed for several months because of mixed responses from several staff members

rather than getting critical feedback and collective approval from all involved staff members. The

opposite can be true. When the museum has well-planned exhibitions, programs, or events,

visitors will also perceive that and will likely to come back. For example, the free family day is

well received by the public and becoming more popular attracting diverse community members

who are not frequent museum-goers.

A multidirectional, active, and democratic communicational system allows many staff

members to share diverse opinions and perspectives on museum practices. When diverse voices

of many staff members are reflected in planning and decision-making processes, the museum’s

practices are more likely to be diversified enough to attract a new audience. Since the museum

has limited staff members and cannot easily change their cultural, ethnic, and educational

backgrounds, the Avery can diversify its practices and create more connections through allowing

more active dialogue among staff members. A linear communication system not only hinders
 231

staff participation but also limits potential new ideas that could be developed through active

dialogue among various staff members. For example, Karen, the administrative assistant, who is

usually not part of any curating and programming processes, could provide input on museum

exhibitions and programming as a member of the African American community in River City,

such as what her family would like to experience at the Avery or what discourages them from

visiting the museum.

Organizations function as open systems, and they have unique cultures that distinguish

them from other organizations (Geertz, 1973; Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1983; Senge,

2006). In this chapter, I described the work culture of the museum through examining internal

communication systems and dynamic relationships and tensions among staff members and

departments. The museum’s surrounding community and primary services, which I detailed in

Chapters Four, Five, and Six, are also important in understanding the museum’s organizational

system and culture holistically. The Avery organization is interconnected with many different

factors, including the community, management system, leadership, board, staff, policies,

mission, vision, and museum services; this list can go on and on. Therefore, every single element

of the museum organization is important and has a great part in fulfilling the museum’s mission.

According to Senge (2006), this type of organization that is described as systemic and

cultural is a learning organization, and it evolves in relation to other elements of the museum

organization. In a learning organization, people continually learn how to work and learn together,

expand their capacity, and think in new and creative ways (Senge, 2006). I believe the Avery is a

learning organization that has a unique culture, capable people, and diverse community

connections. It is not a fixed organization but a flexible one that is changing to meet the needs

and interests of the staff and community. While it has many challenges related to work culture
 232

and communication, it can grow to be something better for the future and its staff members can

learn to work together as a team because the culture of the museum is flexible, not fixed.

Organizations are complicated and described as ever-changing entities. Moving in positive

directions and becoming a more efficient, responsive, and inclusive organization can be achieved

through seeing the whole organization and community, maintaining open and passionate attitude

for life-long learning, being critical about their own biases and assumptions, building and

communicating shared vision, and learning as a team (Senge, 2006). Communication and

dialogue are important for maintaining these mindsets because communication creates a

collective learning network and sound work culture among involved parties (Senge, 2006).

Communication is an on-going, flexible, and multi-directional activity. Through team-

based dialogue and collaboration, all members of an organization can find diverse, creative ways

to solve problems and make decisions. In so doing, they can critically evaluate their practices

and challenge the very thoughts that caused problems in the first place. Einstein said that a

problem will not be solved with the same mindset that caused it (Einstein as cited in Langworthy

& Henein, 2009).

 233

CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

So far, I have examined the Avery Art Museum in relation to the River City community,

and how they are connected with and disconnected from each other. I discussed details of the

Avery’s primary services, exhibitions and programs as well as how they attracted a certain group

of visitors and helped shape the elitist perception of the museum among community members. I

also described the museum’s communication systems and work culture, and how the

communication systems and dynamic relationships among staff members and departments are

also influenced by organizational structure and shape the museum’s practice in reaching out to

diverse community members. In doing so, I portrayed the museum and its community in a

holistic manner to give a better understanding of multiple, interwoven relationships among many

elements of the Avery and the River City community. In this final chapter, I summarize each

previous chapter, present conclusions, and explain how I answered my research questions,

introduced in Chapter One, through this case study of the Avery. I also share what I have learned

through the process of researching and writing the dissertation and discuss future research

directions.

Summary of Chapters

I begin this chapter with a summary of Chapters One through Seven. The summaries are

not exhaustive but designed to help readers see a big picture of the dissertation and act as

references for readers to go find certain parts in actual chapters.

Chapter One

Chapter One provided an overall introduction to the study. I discussed my theoretical

framework of museums as open systems and cultural organizations that influence and are

influenced by surrounding contexts, such as all involved people, mission and vision, building,
 234

organizational and communication structure, and unique characteristics of their communities.

Using this theoretical framework, I explored the three research questions introduced in the

beginning of Chapter One. 1) How is an art museum connected to its community? 2) How do the

museum’s primary services (exhibitions and programs) and practices influence the museum’s

visitorship and perceptions among community members? 3) What is the work culture of the

Avery, and how does the work culture influence the museum’s overall practice? I also shared a

brief description of the research methodology, the ethnographic case study, and the holistic and

narrative quality of my study though reviewing three existing ethnographic studies. In addition, I

explained my role as an active member researcher at the museum who was not a legitimate

member of the museum but was involved partly with the museum’s activities and

responsibilities. I also shared my occasional uncomfortable feelings as a stranger to the museum

and community.

In Chapter One, I also briefly introduced the case study museum using pseudonyms, the

Avery Art Museum, and its community, River City. The Avery is located in Watertown, which is

part of the River City metropolitan area in the Midwest. River City, which has a population

under 400,000, is considered a blue-collar community with farming and heavy manufacturing as

its main industries and 20% of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The Avery is a

premium art museum in the region. It was originally established as public municipal gallery but

became privatized with the help of private money in 2003. Chapters Four and Five include more

detailed descriptions and discussions about River City and the Avery.

Chapter One further described why I chose the Avery as my case museum for the study

and acknowledged my personal assumptions and biases about the research site and museums in

general. I chose the museum as my research site for three reasons. First, I wanted to share a story
 235

of a small- to medium-sized art museum in a Midwestern city that is not well known in the field.

Second, I chose the Avery because it is not familiar to me so that I could see it with less

assumptions and biases. Lastly, staff members at the museum welcomed an outside researcher to

study the museum and felt that my study would be helpful to their museum. While I was

relatively free of assumptions and biases about the museum and Midwest, I did have

preconceived notions about the Midwest and the people there: that it is a farming community and

people there lack passion and creativity. I also had an assumption about ideal museums: in

general, that they are community-oriented, inclusive, and responsive to the needs and interests of

their communities. In addition, I acknowledged that I had a preconceived notion of a museum

theory as a social ecosystem but later adopted more relevant theories specific to organizations,

systems theory and cultural approach.

Furthermore, Chapter One discussed the research background grounded in my personal

experience and the significance of the study in the fields of museum studies and art education. I

shared my experience as a student in Syracuse University’s Museum Studies program and

working at various museums where I did not see much diversity in everyday museum practices. I

contemplated that the lack of diversity, broadly defined, in the field of museums hindered

museum professionals from seeing diverse connections among various elements of museums and

their communities and from making their museums more relevant to and inclusive of diverse

audiences. I also discussed the intellectual significance of the study in four areas: the

significance and concept of learning organizations, the importance of a holistic view of museums

and their communities, the value of museums becoming more active and relevant organizations,

and the significance of diversity museum practices.

 236

Lastly, Chapter One shared the study’s target audience and goals. While the study is

targeted for art museum professionals, it can be used by art educators in general and

professionals from various kinds of museums because the theoretical framework of an

organization as an open system and cultural place can be applied to any educational institution.

The main goal of the study is to help museum professionals and art educators to see and increase

the dynamic and diverse connections with the community, its culture, and surrounding

environments in their practices. I ended Chapter One with an outline of each chapter.

Chapter Two

Chapter Two was devoted to a literature review divided into three sections: a brief history

of museum development in the United States, organization management, and community

development through diversity practices. The first section discussed a history of art museums

beginning as elitist, social institutions that represent the power and wealth of upper-class people

and how museums have responded due to changes in community demands and financial

resources. Museums are becoming more community-oriented, active, relevant, and responsive to

the needs and interests of the community. In addition, the privatization of many museums has

made museum professionals pay more attention to management, leadership, and communication

systems, which are the main elements of the second section of Chapter Two.

In the second section, I reviewed literature in museum management, both non-profit and

for-profit, including organizational and managerial theories, leadership approaches, and

communication systems and theories. In doing so, I identified museums in general as hybrid

organizations that are not neatly categorized as for-profit, non-profit, public, or private. I also

discussed my theoretical framework grounded in humanistic organization literature, especially

systems theory and the cultural approach. Because all organizations have a unique culture and
 237

are interconnected to all involved people and circumstances, an organization can be best

understood by investigating everyday interactions and the work culture of the organization.

Ethnography that is designed to study subtle interactions and the culture of people and

organizations is considered one of the best methodologies to study a complex organization. My

theoretical framework also values the importance of dialogic communication that is multi-

directional, on-going, flexible, and creating new ideas.

The third section of the literature review discussed how other museums have met the

needs and interests of community members, built broad constituencies, and broadened their

audiences to include diverse groups from the surrounding communities. The third section is

divided into four areas: curatorial and programming approaches, exhibitions and programs, staff

composition and development, and visitor population and background. At the end I identified

several exemplary museums that are considered community-oriented learning centers that have

diversified their practices at various levels. Through Chapter Two, in summary, I identified my

theoretical lens based on cultural and systems theory in which I see, interpret, and understand the

Avery as a systemic and cultural organization in relation to surrounding environments and

people. In addition, all discussed literature informed my research and was used to analyze and

further discussion in Chapters Four through Eight.

Chapter Three

In Chapter Three, I described details of my research methodology, an ethnographic case

study, and justified why I chose that specific methodology. Ethnography is often used to study

culture and interactions of groups of people and organizations and serves as an excellent tool to

study deeper meanings of behaviors and conversations of involved people because a researcher

becomes part of the research setting, interacting with participants on a daily basis. Because
 238

ethnography is suited for detailed and in-depth study and is time-consuming, I chose to combine

a focused case study with ethnographic inquiry. The first section of Chapter Three discussed

details of an ethnographic case study as methodology, which is closely associated with

naturalistic research and narrative writing style. Naturalistic inquiry posits that researchers are

always part of the research setting and that they observe and understand research setting and

participants without manipulation, although their perspectives and actions are always part of the

research process. A narrative writing style allowed me to include diverse perspectives and ideas

of participants and detailed descriptions of phenomenon, helping me avoid understanding the

museum and community from my own assumptions and biases.

In the second section of the chapter, I detailed my approach to and details of data

collection and research design and how existing qualitative research literature helped me design

and manage my own research. My general approach to data collection and participants is casual

and friendly, which provided a positive impression to participants and therefore allowed

participants to share their feelings and perspectives more freely. Details of the research design

included how I gained access to the museum, gathered and managed data, and analyzed and

interpreted them. First of all, my academic connection to the director of the Museum Studies

program affiliated with the case study museum helped me get access. I used interviews,

observations, journaling, visual means, and walking to gather data. I analyzed and interpreted

data through various coding systems and layered analysis, which allowed me to visit the raw data

multiple times and to avoid interpretation mistakes.

Lastly, I acknowledged five limitations of the methodology. First, my assumptions and

biases described in Chapter One could have acted as limitations to understating the culture of the

museum and community fully. Second, because I was an institutional outsider, participant
 239

behaviors and reactions would have been manipulated when interacting with me. Third, I had a

limited time to conduct the study, and my observations are limited to activities that happened

during the data collection period. Fourth, the study is limited because it does not generalize in the

way of quantitative research, and lastly, perspectives and ideas presented in this study do not

represent all members of the museum and community. I ended Chapter Three with my

reflections on the complex processes of data collection and analysis.

Chapters Four and Five

Chapters Four, Five, Six, and Seven make up the core of the case study based on the data

I collected in the summer of 2011. Chapter Four provided deep descriptions of the River City

community in terms of economy, demographics, arts and culture, interactions with other

organizations in the community, education, and the perception of the Midwest, while Chapter

Five focused on the Avery in relation to its founding history, mission and goals, and governing

authority and department structure. I started the chapters with my first impression of the

community and museum through the eyes of an outsider. Then, I moved to incorporate diverse

perspectives of the museum staff and board members, visitors, and community members in

describing the community and museum. Chapters Four and Five are interconnected but I decided

to divide them into two chapters because of its length. These two chapters describe the unique

culture of the community and museum and how they coevolved.

Chapter Four mainly focused on the River City community, which is the larger social

environment and context that encompass the Avery, including its economic, demographic,

cultural, and educational characteristics. River City has approximately 150,000 households, and

some of the communities in River City were founded in the early 1800s. The region is largely

divided by four cities, including Watertown where the Avery is located. Economically, River
 240

City largely depends on farming and heavy manufacturing industries, although its economy

expanded to include education and hospitality more recently. Its population is homogeneous,

having 80% White, 7% African American, 5% Hispanic/Latino/Latina, and 2% Asian. Its

educational level and job configurations are also not very diverse. Many consider River City to

be a blue-collar community.

River City has a number of arts and cultural institutions, including a zoo, a botanical

garden, theaters, and museums, which are scattered around the four cities in River City. The

number of arts and cultural organizations and arts venues increased in the late 1900s when many

heavy manufacturing and farming equipment companies moved out to find less expensive labor

and resources. Therefore, the region had to find ways to diversify its economy using arts,

education, and tourism. While other forms of arts are popular in River City, visual art is the least

popular form of art among community members. The Avery strives to maintain partnerships with

local arts organizations and museums in order to diversify its practices and provide an ideal

educational site for local colleges and universities.

Because its economy has been associated with farming and heavy manufacturing, its

educational infrastructure traditionally did not pay much attention to visual art education; this

tendency is still found in the public school system in River City as some schools do not even

offer any visual arts programs. Currently, with the economic downturn, visual art education is

not valued in public school education. The Avery is one of a few major arts organizations that

offer visual arts experiences for local children. Due to the increase in arts organizations in the

last 1900s and more job training demands in arts and educational sectors, local colleges and

universities have provided several related degree programs, and people in the community

demand more opportunities for arts education and job training in that area in general.
 241

In Chapter Five, I focused on the Avery, which is one of the major visual arts educational

institutions in River City. I provided a founding history of the museum as well as an overview of

the museum. The museum was first founded as a municipal art gallery in 1925, became

privatized in 2003, and moved to a new Watertown downtown building in 2005. The Avery was

accredited by the AAM in 1983 and reaccredited in 2009. The Avery Charitable Foundation

donated 13 of the more than 45 million dollars necessary to complete construction of the new

building, and the museum was renamed after the Avery Foundation. While the museum is a

private non-profit organization, it receives 30% budgetary support from the City of Watertown.

I also discussed the museum’s mission, vision, and goals, governing authority, and the

departmental structure. The mission of the museum is to serve the public by promoting

appreciation and creation of visual art through education and by collecting, conserving, and

exhibiting art. However, the vision and goals of the museum in the summer of 2011 were not

clear because the absence of the executive director. The governing structure of the museum

consists of the director, board of trustees, and various committees, and the museum departments

include education, curatorial/registration, development/marketing, visitor services, museum

services, facility management, and administrative. The museum follows a traditional top-down

business model that gives decision-making power to the board and director, which follows a

mechanical business model. However, the museum also has organic management qualities as the

structure is somewhat flexible and staff input is partially reflected. I also discussed the issues of

leadership style and staff composition. Collective and flexible leadership was recommended as it

provides more opportunities for diverse staff opinions and perspectives to be included in the

major decision-making process and governance. I ended Chapter Five by summarizing how the

community and museum have coevolved.

 242

Chapter Six

Chapter Six examined the museum’s primary services, exhibitions and programs, and

why some of them are more popular than others among community members. The museum’s

programs usually follow the themes of exhibitions but the curatorial and education departments

do not work together as a collaborative team. Most museum exhibitions are mounted in a

traditional white cube approach and feature works of art from professional artists while some

exhibitions are closely related to non-mainstream art, including practical art shows, such as quilt

and woodcarving, and community-oriented exhibitions featuring artwork of college, high school,

and younger students. The museum’s exhibition labels are considered traditional as well, often

discussing historical and esthetic aspects of the artwork. Many visitors found the museum labels

difficult to understand.

The museum’s programs include K-12 outreach programs, free family days, docent tours,

and art-making classes. The museum offers a Thursday evening event when the museum is open

until 9:00 pm with a variety of activities, such as a live music performance, dining, film

showings, and lectures. The museum also offers a travel program to international cities and well-

known American cities for museum members to experience prestigious art scenes. It has non-art-

related programs that are often combined with other forms of art or done in collaboration with

other cultural and educational institutions in the community. These programs tend to attract more

diverse members from the community and are considered more accessible than programs such as

the international travel program or art history lectures.

While the museum’s exhibitions and programs are popular among frequent museum

visitors and public school students and parents, these services tend to attract a certain group of

people in the community who are well educated and affluent. Some of the services, such as the
 243

travel program, are not considered accessible for most community members. Therefore, they

create the elitist perception among some community members.

There are other reasons that community members have elitist perceptions about the

museum. Community members feel that the museum is an elitist institution because the museum

building looks rather expensive, minimalist, and different from the architecture of the city.

Connected to the lack of visual art education in the community, most people in the community

feel that they cannot understand art at the museum. They lack cultural capital to understand

visual art at the museum so they just avoid going to the art museum altogether. People in the

community fear art and they think art at the Avery is not connected to their daily lives. In

relation to the lack of cultural capital, the community has few visual art supporters, and visual art

is the least popular form of art in River City. They also feel that programs and exhibitions at the

Avery are hands-off and not engaging. In addition, other cultural and educational organizations

in the community also see the Avery as an elitist and closed institution, which echoes the

community’s elitist perceptions about the Avery.

I explained what community members would like to experience at the Avery, which

involves more hands-on and interactive activities relevant to the community. While the museum

offers a variety of exhibitions and programs that are successful, some community members did

not connect to the current museum offerings on a personal level, which made them feel

uncomfortable and uninvited to the museum setting. According to the visitor demographic

survey, the museum tends to cater to a certain group of people in the community, who are White,

older, wealthy, and well educated. The tendency is closely related to how most people in the

community perceive the Avery as an elitist institution that is somewhat closed and exclusive.
 244

I suggested that the Avery has to find out why community members do not come to the

museum and how these dominant perceptions can be transformed in the minds of most

community members through systemic visitor and not-visitor studies.

Chapter Seven

Chapter Seven discussed the Avery’s internal communication system and dynamic

relationships among staff members and departments that create the museum’s work culture. The

internal communication system detailed two areas: board and committee communication and

internal staff meetings. The board meetings are sometimes ineffective because board members

are volunteers and some lack a thorough understanding of the museum industry. There is little

interaction between the board and staff members, which may be caused by inefficient

communication and collaboration systems. Because of the hierarchical organization structure of

the museum, most staff members are not part of the governing and decision-making process and,

therefore, are not part of most board meetings. The museum board background suggests that they

may not understand the abstruse nature of museum profitability while museum professionals tend

to focus too much on the quality of museum work.

The museum has many staff meetings, including all-staff, department head, education,

development, marketing, event, security, and exhibition and programming; summaries of the

characteristics of each meeting is provided in Table 1. While these different meetings have

different functions, there are invisible boundaries in that some meetings are open only to certain

people. Education meetings are considered private, which does not allow people from other

departments to join. This practice hinders interdepartmental collaboration that could lead to more

diverse and successful programming and exhibitions. I suggested that systems thinking can be
 245

helpful for a more holistic view of the museum that allows involvement and inclusion of diverse

opinions and perspectives of all staff members.

Individual and departmental tensions exist among staff members, which may be caused

by divided office spaces and different working styles and personalities. In particular, curatorial

and education departments do not collaborate with each other on exhibitions and programs even

though they are closely related in themes. More teamwork and collective management style are

suggested. While the Avery is a complex and dynamic organization that cannot be easily

understood by the eyes of an outsider and seems to have many challenges, it can be a learning

organization that transitions into something that is better and growing. Becoming a learning

organization also means to learn and work as a team in order to achieve a shared vision.

Conclusions

Based on participants’ perspectives and my understanding, the Avery has been an

effective and valuable site for the community, but it also has challenges to becoming an active

part of the community and serving diverse community members. The museum functioned

effectively in maintaining its existence for about a century, has been one of the leading visual

arts educational institutions in the community, has functioned as a local and national tourist and

entertainment destination, and has helped stimulate the region’s economy. However, the Avery is

facing challenges in regard to changes in operational, organizational, and funding structures;

communication systems; and an elitist community perception of the museum. On one hand, for

example, the Avery has sustained itself as a major art museum that is responsible for visual arts

education in River City for both adults and children. The museum has sustained devoted

members and frequent visitors who like to experience what the museum offers. The museum also

has provided successful outreach programs, such as visual art programs and after school lessons,
 246

for public school children. On the other hand, some community members think visual art is not

important, and the museum is not perceived as something that can be used by everybody from

the community. The former quality of the museum demonstrates that the museum is a relevant

organization that has maintained itself as an essential part of the community, but the latter

indicates that the Avery does not interact with some people in the community at all.

In this section, I conclude how the Avery has become an essential part of the community,

while I discuss its challenges in attracting more diverse community members. I share

recommendations for the museum to become a more active, inclusive, and relevant organization.

The Avery as an Active, Relevant, and Effective Organization

While the Avery as a non-profit, private institution existed only for six years by the

summer of 2011, the museum from its origin in 1925 has served the community for almost 100

years. The Avery has influenced lives of many including visitors, children, teachers, docents,

volunteers, museum staff, and others. Although there is not thorough qualitative data about how

the museum has influenced and helped people in the community, several examples clearly show

that the museum has made an impact on community members’ lives through its various

programs. One example is that the museum’s K-12 outreach programs have exposed many

children to visual art experiences in the public school system in River City and beyond, where

visual art programs are not emphasized or otherwise available. Another example is that some

high school students receive scholarships through the Avery to attend visual art programs at

various colleges and universities.

The museum has sustained itself in relation to changes in the community, adapting to the

shifting cultural and economic surroundings. As I discussed in Chapters Four and Five, it has

changed over time, moving to different locations and revising its mission and goals in relation to
 247

the changing needs and interests of its community. The museum’s long lasting history

demonstrates that the Avery has had enough resilience to maintain its function as a visual art

institution and institutional power to become today’s Avery. In general, the Avery has modified

its location, mission, and function to be a more adaptive organization in the community in terms

of education and economic contributions.

Education. More than half of the participants said that the Avery has educated people in

the community for a long time. Historically, the River City community has been a blue-collar

community. The museum could not just function as a conventional art museum that is a

depository for collecting, preserving, and exhibiting art because the community has not had a

large enough group of visual art supporters who understand the traditional culture, content, and

function of art museums. Members of the community needed more engagement and education

about visual art rather than just being exposed to artwork with minimal explanation. Because of

this, the museum’s core mission has evolved to one that emphasizes the educational role of the

museum.

The museum puts its educational role first in its mission to serve the community. By

offering art-making classes, academic lectures and talks, and various outreach programs for

adults, youths, and children, the museum plays an important role in exposing adults and children

to the benefits of arts and arts-making. For some people the benefits of the arts are more direct

and practical. If a child, who experienced art-making and various arts scenes at the Avery,

decides to pursue a career in the field of visual arts, such as art teacher or designer, the benefit is

more visible and direct. For example, at the museum’s 2011 gala event, one of the scholarship

winners spoke very well about her experience with the Avery. She learned art at the Avery’s

summer drawing program and developed her own way of creating art. She also had opportunities
 248

to show her work at the museum. She was going to a state university for graphic design.

However, some people might use art just for pleasure or mental relaxation, in which case the

benefits are somewhat invisible and subtle. For some children, the Avery is the one of a few

sources of formal visual art education. Through the museum’s collections from other cultures,

the museum also exposes community members to other cultures and different ways of thinking.

Local community art teachers and professors use the museum programs and collections for their

curriculum and course assignments. Some people said that the museum provides “real” visual art

experiences by exhibiting authentic artwork rather than showing replicas or pictures in books or

online.

The Avery is one of a few places in town where people can go every day for continual

education. Other arts organizations, such as the ballet or symphony, can only be enjoyed during

particular performances. In contrast, the Avery allows relatively inexpensive access to an arts

experience on potentially a daily basis. Participants also said that the Avery is a place for

stretching the imagination, pushing understandings of new areas and perspectives, and teaching

people for the future. The museum’s educational programs and exhibitions not only teach people

new ideas but also challenge them to learn things that are outside of their comfort zones.

The former director, Ken, saw the museum as an essential part of the existing educational

infrastructure and strived to strengthen its place within it. According to Ken, the museum could

grow and has helped the educational infrastructure of River City because the community needed

a more complete, balanced educational system. He felt that the museum had a role to play in the

public school system, as well as in the university system and in continuing education. When he

was in charge, he worked very hard to build educational alliances and to bring, for example, the

Museum Studies program into the museum because he felt strongly that education is why the
 249

museum existed. He thought that developing the educational infrastructure in these ways was

essential for the overall development of the River City area.

Economic contribution. Most board and staff members whom I interviewed said that the

museum plays a significant economic function in the community. It attracts new businesses and

CEOs, developing a strong workforce for the area. The director of the Chamber of Commerce

and museum board member, Callie, said if the museum were closed, it would hurt this

community economically. Many businesses and corporations use the museum as a selling point

in the area when they try to attract employees from other areas. Callie said, for example, “When I

have a prospect here, I walk him or her in to the Avery. I let them look up the river, and I explain

the community because it creates the immediate impression that we are sophisticated and we

have a diverse cultural mix here. There’s no other place I can go in this community that does that

as quickly” (personal communication, July 11, 2011). She also said that showing the Avery to

prospective business partners and CEOs helps them to see beyond the widespread impression of

the Midwest as “being parochial and oriented toward corn and frying pan” (personal

communication, July 11, 2011).

In relation to the economic contribution of the museum in the community, many

recognize the Avery as an important regional tourist destination that brings economic benefits to

the community and acts as an entertainment site. While many staff and community members,

including Ken, said there is almost zero tourism in the River City area, according to a professor,

Dave, who teaches Parks and Recreation Studies at a local university, River City is a regional

tourist destination, and the museums in the community are moving toward becoming more

popular tourist destinations. According to Falk and Dierking (2000), after education,

entertainment is the most frequently cited reason to visit museums. The director of the
 250

Convention and Visitors Bureau, Michael, believes that the regional tourism and service

industries are playing an increasingly large role in the region’s economy and that the Avery is an

essential player.

Social engagement and personal growth. Considering the fact that most museum

visitors come to the museum in a group with family members and friends, the museum is a place

for social engagement. For example, on Thursday evenings several groups of people

(approximately 30-40 people) come to the museum with friends and family to enjoy music, food,

art, and other activities offered by the museum. They talk about exhibitions and programs

together and share ideas with each other.

Through programs that address local environmental concerns and health issues,

participants can develop a sense of civic engagement that can lead to real action and changes in

the community. By working with diverse artists and collaborating with local organizations that

are not necessarily related to visual art, the Avery provides opportunities for community

members to be engaged in civic projects that address local concerns and challenges. These

examples support Janes’ (2009) argument that a museum must play an active part in addressing

and solving social issues in order to be a responsive and relevant organization in its community.

The museum also opens up opportunities for people who are interested in pursuing

careers in arts and in becoming artists. The internship programs for college students, volunteer

programs for adults and youth, and a docent training program for adults are targeted to help

career development, continuing education, and personal growth. The scholarship program

certainly helps some high school students to attend art schools and become artists or art

educators.
 251

Many people said that the museum is also a place for relaxation. One visitor said that he

goes to the Avery to find time for reflection and feel a sense of relaxation. Falk (2009) refers to

these visitors as “rechargers,” people who visit museums in order to reflect or rejuvenate.

While the Avery has been a vital part of the community by being a leading visual art

educational organization for about a century, the museum has served only a fraction of the River

City population, mostly school children and a well-educated, wealthy group of adults. For some

people, the Avery is not an important element of the community, and they can live their lives

without visiting the Avery even once in their lifetime. In the next section, I discuss the Avery’s

challenges in reaching out to diverse community members and suggestions for becoming a more

active and relevant organization in the community.

Challenges and Suggestions: Becoming an Active Part of the Community

Even though the Avery has adapted to changes in the River City community over time,

the museum has not been successful in attracting a broad variety of people from the community

and adjacent regions. There are several challenges that have limited the museum from becoming

a more active organization and from attracting diverse community members. First, as discussed

in Chapter Seven, the museum has communication challenges that are caused by personal and

departmental conflicts and tensions. Another challenge of the museum is to understand the

community fully, which potentially can lead the museum to provide successful exhibitions and

programs that are relevant to many community members. Lastly, the museum has financial

difficulties due to the economic downturn and changes in funding sources after it became

privatized. In this section, I discuss each challenge with suggestions that were shared by

participants. I also include the recommendations that I presented at the museum’s all-staff

meeting, which I attended right before I left the Avery in the summer of 2011. My
 252

recommendations at the meeting are also provided in Appendix D. In this section, I present my

original suggestions in Appendix D with further recommendations that emerged through

analysis, further readings, and contemplation.

Inefficient communication and non-collaborative work culture. The Avery has

traditionally followed a hierarchical business model for governing the museum and its staff.

When this type of management model lacks sound leadership, such as its executive director,

establishing a clear communication system and sound work culture throughout the museum

becomes challenging because the director has the responsibility for creating them.

Communication is one of the important aspects of an organization in fulfilling its mission and

purposes (Guetzkow, 1965; Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1983; Peters & Waterman,

1982), and it is a means to create work culture whether it is sound or unpleasant. At the Avery,

diverse communicative pathways have not arisen from the previously established communication

system, which is based on a linear communication style. In addition, as discussed in Chapter

Seven, personal and departmental conflicts and dynamics deteriorated the museum’s

communication and collaboration among staff members and departments, which in turn created

an unsound work culture and lack of teamwork. According to the CFO and the acting director,

Ed, due to lack of communication and collaboration, each department tends to determine their

own set of goals that are somewhat independent of the goals of the institution and other

departments. Although each department takes initiatives that are worth pursuing, decisions are

often made within each department without considering the benefits to other departments and

their input. Insufficient communication among staff members and departments at the Avery

sometimes led to a waste of staff time and resources and decreased productivity in creating

cohesive sets of exhibitions and programs.

 253

According to Lencioni (2006 & 2012), building a cohesive and collaborative leadership

team is the first step to becoming an effective organization, and Janes (1999) and Setterberg &

Schulman (1985) recommend collective leadership in museums and other non-profit

organizations. As I discussed in Chapters Two and Five, the collective leadership model is based

on mutual accountability, consensus decision-making, and rotating leaders regularly (Setterberg

& Schulman, 1985). It is usually team-based and a group of leaders work together with other

team members to achieve a collective mission and vision (Janes, 1999). When a leadership team

is not cohesive or is absent, an organization simply cannot be successful because inconsistency

or lack of leadership inevitability affects the rest of the organization including the morale of staff

members, the communication system, policies, strategies, and more (Lencioni, 2012). In this

case, the organization is not complete, and, therefore, its vision cannot be consistent throughout

the institution. Therefore, I recommend the Avery adopt a collective, democratic, and supportive

leadership style that engages the multiple intelligences of all staff members. This leadership style

also allows an open and multi-directional communication system that flows information,

knowledge, and messages, creating an endless network for new ideas to flourish.

The collective leadership style and diverse communication system also foster teamwork

and more collaboration to achieve a collective vision for the future, which can lead museum

departments to work together and to work with other organizations in the community to create

cohesive and diverse sets of exhibitions and programs. Working together as a team from the

outset to develop exhibitions and related educational programs is a great way to understand each

other’s work and save time that could be wasted by planning similar things individually. In

addition, more collaboration could be done with other museums and cultural institutions in the
 254

area. Cultural institutions in River City can share information and help each other rather than

competing.

Understanding the community fully. According to my observations and interviews with

many participants, there has been little study of the River City community and what it would

take for non-museum visitors to become actual museum users. Not fully understanding the

museum’s potential audience in the community can reduce the Avery’s ability to respond to the

changing needs and interests of the community. When staff members do not fully understand

their community and who the museum would like to attract, the museum’s marketing and

programming efforts become directionless, and its resources can be wasted without clear goals.

According to Kotler and Kotler (1998), “if a museum fails to reach and attract sufficient

audiences, it is not likely to survive” (p. 38). According to many participants, the elitist

perception is one of the main reasons why some people do not enjoy the Avery’s current

offerings. I suggest ways to make the museum a more comfortable place to visit. First, however,

the museum needs to use systematic studies to determine what community members in River

City want from the Avery.

More research and studies. Without well-documented visitor and non-visitor studies, the

Avery’s staff do not really know why some people do not want to visit and why some have

negative perceptions of the museum’s practices. As one community member said, knowing the

community is the first step before trying to get people from the community into the museum. The

museum also needs a set of systematic evaluation methods for its exhibitions, programs, and

other practices, which would enable the staff to have direct or indirect conversations with their

visitors through receiving feedback. Focus group interviews and more in-depth qualitative

research could be beneficial to the museum for maintaining their current visitorship and for
 255

inviting new audiences. According to Silverman and O’Neill (2004), visitor studies can help

show complex museum visitor patterns and provide perspectives that reveal the blind spots in

museum practices.

Engaging the community. The director of security, Scott, believes that the Avery is

making strides towards being a community-oriented organization but is lacking the necessary

steps to start opening up to the blue-collar culture in River City. He said that he is interested in

seeing more practical and easily understandable art such as a motor vehicle show, which would

be somewhat unconventional at the Avery. He thinks that would draw more people into the

museum. While some said that the Avery would not do certain art exhibitions because they are

not considered high art or fine art, can one form of art be more valuable, higher, or finer than

others? Many local artists and art professors suggested that the Avery would be better received

by the community if it would support local artists, show their work more often, and provide

exhibitions and programs that are considered relevant to arts, culture, and economy of River

City.

The former director of development at the Avery, Josh, said that the community not

valuing visual art might be related to the Avery’s practices. In his words, “We can’t spend a lot

of time saying shame on the community. We need to understand our community and how we can

best serve them” (Josh, personal communication, July 19, 2011). The director of the Children’s

Museum, Jackie, shared her perspective on attracting more diverse community members into the

Avery. Having lived in the region for a long time and led the Children’s Museum for 20 years,

she thinks the Avery has to find a way to somehow Midwesternize or blue-collarize the whole

notion of enjoying arts. Jackie continued that people are more and more likely to actively engage

and participate in arts experiences rather than just looking at untouchable paintings on the wall.
 256

As Nina Simon (2010) put it, there is a broad variety of participation in gallery settings including

people who “consume user-generated content, comment on it, organize it, remix it, and

redistribute it to other consumers” (p. 8). While I do not intend to ignore diverse ways of

participation that are somewhat subtle and considered less active, including looking at a painting,

thinking about it, and talking about it, people in River City might be looking for something that

requires more active ways of participating.

Several people recommended that the Avery has to be really out there in the community.

The Avery has a fine and diverse art collection, great programs, and intelligent staff, but the

museum somehow has to go out to bring people in. Public school field trips to the museum are

great ways to encourage younger generations to be interested in museum visits, and the K-12

outreach programs are well received among students, teachers, and parents. What about people

who do not pay attention to current museum offerings? How would the Avery get them

interested in coming to the museum? For example, I volunteered at one of the arts activities that

happened in the nearby baseball stadium. The stadium is a popular hangout for family and

friends, and it has a nice area for resting and playing. The stadium provided us with a spacious

area where we could put a large canvas against the wall along with tables for paint bottles and

brushes. It was a community mural project. Anybody could squirt paint from paint bottles,

smudge, or paint something with the long, large brushes. Children loved to participate and so did

some adults. The museum was able to advertise the upcoming family day at the museum and to

teach children about Jackson Pollock’s painting style and elements. This project was a good

example of how to bring museum activities and representatives to the community to deliver a

message that the Avery wants the community to participate and come to the museum. It also
 257

combined art activities with a sports event that is already popular in the community, creating an

easier transition from something they already enjoy to something new.

Revising the physical spaces. As I pointed out in Chapter Six, many community

members mentioned that the museum needs to be a comfortable and accessible place for visitors

to hangout and not be intimidated physically and emotionally. Daniel E. Stetson (2002), a former

executive director of the Polk Museum of Art in Lakeland, Florida, said in his essay, “access and

comfort of access aren’t about niche marketing. If you approach it that way, engagement

becomes episodic rather than systemic” (p. 75). Because many staff members and visitors are

concerned about the cold exterior of the building, intimidating lobby area, and sterile interior of

the galleries, the Avery needs more greeters and gallery guides, signage, comfortable seating

areas, and more comfortable interior design. Although the building itself is artwork and stands

out, it does not seem to invite people from the community and even evokes the feeling that it is

elitist. Some suggested that the museum could use its exterior walls as advertising tools by

installing banners or projecting images or texts on the surface. The fact that the building does not

say anything about the museum or current and upcoming events makes the building uninviting

and somewhat lifeless. Several people suggested that the Avery use its plaza in front of the

building to hold more outdoor events and attract people from the outside, making the concept of

the museum as a closed-in box invalid among community members. The plaza is 38,000 square

feet, but currently has only one sculpture, some benches, and several trees. Creating a more

inviting ambience inside of the building in such areas as lobby, café, and library can be achieved

through offering Wi-Fi service, which can attract young professionals, students, and researchers,

making those spaces alive with people.

 258

Expanding art. Through my observations and interviews, I found out that visual art is

one of the least popular forms of art enjoyed by the community and that community members

think they need special background and cultural capital to understand visual arts, which they

consider the domain of elite and high culture. The museum could offer some free lectures and

workshops about how to use museum resources and materials for local parents and teachers so

that they feel more confident about bringing their children into the museum rather than avoiding

it all together. In general, people tend to trust museum content and how it is presented (Kelly

2006; Rosenzweig & Thelen, 1998). According to a survey conducted by Roy Rosenzweig and

David Thelen (1998), many Americans think museums are most trustworthy when it comes to

ways of experiencing history. Museums earned a score of 8.4 while professors earned 7.3 and

nonfiction books 6.4, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the least trustworthy and 10 being the

most trustworthy (Rosenzweig & Thelen, 1998). If the Avery has a program that reflects the

interests of the community, the people of the region will respond. Cultural capital is something

that can be obtained, but it takes time to build. It needs time, education, and mindset. The

museum cannot do it by itself. It might take appropriate policies, willing staff, collective

leadership, a knowledgeable and active board, community participation, and support from the

educational system.

Many wanted to see music and dance performances at the Avery as well as diverse topics

of lectures and art talks that are not necessarily related to art history and aesthetic interpretations

of artwork. There are many ways to diversify visual arts, and one way would be to combine it

with other forms of art that are already popular in the community and to expand topics of visual

arts through an interdisciplinary approach. Director of the Children’s Museum, Jackie, suggested

the Avery have more partnerships with music, dancing, and performance arts groups in the
 259

community and provide something that is more interdisciplinary and participatory. As one board

member suggested, the Avery’s building and plaza can be stages not just for performances but

for various experiences. The stage could be expanded through partnerships and collaboration

with various arts, cultural, and educational organizations in the community.

Jackie, the director of the Children’s Museum, commented that many people in the

community actively participate in theater performances, music venues, dancing, and annual arts

festivals around River City, but they do not often see themselves as arts consumers. According to

a study conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts (2011), a narrow definition of arts

participation based on passive forms of Westernized art appreciation constricts participation

from diverse community members. The study concluded that arts and cultural organizations can

facilitate greater public participation and become essential parts of their communities when arts

participation is defined more broadly, including multiple forms of arts activities (National

Endowment for the Arts, 2011).

Jackie gave an example: “My dad loves musicals and brass band festivals and all that

kind of stuff, but he doesn’t think of himself as being necessarily a consumer of the arts. I said,

‘Dad, you are. Maybe you don’t understand the visual art but you love the arts.’” She thinks the

key to success is to find ways to expand visual arts through connecting it to other types of

popular arts forms among community members through collaboration. The museum has to open

itself up to more people who do not believe that they are arts consumers and to understand how

they feel about the current museum offerings.

Sharing authority. Another way to respond to community needs and interests is to invite

community members to participate in designing museum exhibitions and programs. This might

sound radical. However, the Avery has done some similar projects previously to develop
 260

museum knowledge in collaboration with diverse people who do not have a traditional sense of

authority, and therefore the museum shares authority in creating exhibitions and programs with

them. A good example of sharing authority is the docent-picked show that is created in

collaboration with many museum docents, who traditionally do not have the authority that

directors and curators often have. Most US museum curators, often with an art historical

background, create the content of exhibitions and choose what to include and what not to include

in exhibitions and interpretive panels and labels. Therefore, they create museum knowledge

based on their previous knowledge, experiences, and worldviews. This is why most art museum

exhibitions tend to be closely related to art history and to an aesthetic interpretation of artwork

and art movements that are not easily understood by lay audiences. Through sharing authority,

museums can provide offerings that are influenced by diverse people with different background

and perspectives.

Several museums have adopted this practice, and it is becoming more popular in other

countries. For example, as discussed in Chapter Two, the Migration Museum in Adelaide,

Australia, offers a community gallery called The Forum to provide opportunities for visitors to

share their own displays, stories, and experiences in collaboration with the museum staff

(Szekeres, 2002). Another example of sharing authority is the Glenbow Museum’s collective

exhibition and programming practice. The Glenbow co-created the exhibition, Nitsitapiisinni:

Our Way of Life, with First Nations People whose culture and history were the main subject of

the exhibition (Conaty & Carter, 2005). The perspectives, stories, and feedback of First Nations

People were included from the beginning stage of the exhibition and programming process

(Conaty & Carter, 2005). The Avery can adopt this approach by working with local teachers,

students, and other community groups.

 261

Financial difficulties. Externally, financial shortfalls caused by both the economic

downturn and the reduction of city funding have kept the museum from becoming a more vibrant

element of the River City community. In addition, because the museum recently moved to a new

facility, it carries a large amount of debt as well as a shortage of funding for the curatorial and

education departments. The museum intends to have more free programs that appeal to local

community members to provide new offerings and to develop marketing strategies that could

develop new audiences. However, financial restrictions have prevented the museum from

offering more free family days, conducting in-depth visitor and marketing studies, and hiring

more staff members to bring new perspectives. One board member said that the Avery cannot

afford to hire more staff members to provide more services in terms of operations, not including

collecting new artwork or adding new facilities, even though the museum is in great need of

more human resources.

The former senior curator, Jack, commented that because of the budgetary constraints,

the Avery has not been able to hire the kind of seasoned, knowledgeable staff, which includes the

full-time positions of senior curator and executive director. He said that while current staff

members are very dedicated and hardworking despite time and funding limits, the problem is that

people can only do that for so long. Staff members without enough support and funding may

eventually burn out. According to Schwarzer (2002), burnout in the museum profession hurts

organizational efficiency and can become a health hazard. In addition, with absence of the

executive director, donors feel reluctant to give money to the Avery because they do not know

where the museum is going. This demonstrates how the organizational structure is related to the

museum’s financial status. However, this financial challenge can become an opportunity for the

museum to pay more attention to the needs and interests of community members (Moore, 1994;
 262

Sandell, 1998; Weil, 1999). Therefore, the museum can attract more community members as

patrons and donors rather than relying on traditional funding sources, which are becoming

scarcer.

Several board and staff members addressed the need for a new fundraising approach to

remove the museum’s current debts and raise more money for years to come, especially to be

ready for the years after 2024 when the City of Watertown may decide to cut funding for the

museum. Because of limited visual art supporters, raising a lot more money than the museum

currently does would be very difficult. As I described in Chapter Four, the director of

development, Reta, suggested a new fundraising approach that is community-driven. This

method is based on teamwork, including staff, board, volunteers, and community members, who

can go out to the community and find a certain number of people who can contribute certain

amount of money a year. The new fundraising strategy has been successful raising approximately

$400,000 since July 2011 (as of March 2012) twice as much as the museum raised annually

using a previous fundraising method.

Discussion. The challenges addressed in this chapter may surprisingly lead to more

creative ways of reaching out to community members and using staff time with creativity and a

flexible mindset. The director of the Children’s Museum, Jackie, said that creativity,

collaboration, and willingness to take risks would pay off eventually, but it is a never-ending

process. In her words, “We need to change things and be willing to take a risk once in a while to

see if it’s going to work and it’s just really a never ending activity. You never get finished, ever.

That’s the fun part about it” (Jackie, personal communication, July 29, 2011). She also added:

When you put a good collaboration together there are people who will fund that because

funders like to see amenities working together and not trying to do everything on their
 263

own. You know I can say this after 20 years; it is a lot easier to work with partners than it

is to try to do it on your own.” (Jackie, personal communication, July 29, 2011)

The director of development, Reta, said that if the museum fails to understand and serve

the various members of the community, it will not exist 20 years from now. In Reta’s words,

“We can’t just serve upper-level class people, who are only fraction of the community if we want

to create a sense of ownership” (personal communication, May 19, 2011), which is a key in

establishing the Avery as an integral part of the community where members feel comfortable

visiting and participating.

Perhaps, Anderson’s new set of mission statements can act as a helpful mindset for the

Avery in order to achieve more interactions and relevance among community members.

Anderson (2010) suggests that museums might need to revise their traditional mission statements

(to collect, preserve, and interpret) and adopt a new set of mission statements that reflect the

changing needs and interests of society, that is, to gather, steward, and converse. Museums are

no longer places for objects but for people, so they need to gather not only objects but also

people, expertise, and experiences to make museums alive and more active. Because their new

collection is more than objects, museums need to steward rather than preserve their living

collections of people, expertise, and experiences. Lastly, museums converse with involved

people, living collections, and their visitors and community members in order to be more

relevant and connected. This new set of mission statements views museums as organic

organizations that deserve proper management and stewardship in order to sustain themselves

and to be better organizations for the years to come.

Lastly I would like to suggest that the Avery be a learning organization that is led by

teachers, leaders, and collaborators rather than managers, followers, and lone workers. The
 264

Avery is already a learning, organic, and cultural organization in the way that it has coevolved

with the community’s needs and interests. It is an open and complex system that is influenced by

involved people and surrounding environments. However, this does not mean that the museum

cannot be more effective and more relevant to a wide range of community members and non-

visitors to the museum. As I have emphasized in this study several times, organizations can grow

and learn to improve themselves through tight relationships and various interactions among

people and resources. I believe Senge (2006)’s five disciplines to lead an origination to an

innovative and sustainable learning community would be helpful for the Avery in order to create

a better learning and work environment.

First, systems thinking is the most critical aspect of understanding and becoming a

learning organization. Systems thinking is the framework for understanding an organization as

an open and cultural system that is connected to many parts of the organization and its

community, has a unique institutional culture that distinguishes it from other organizations, and

changes over time in relation to changes in the system (Senge, 2006). It is a useful mindset to

think of an organization as an organic entity that it is alive in a sense because of its mobility and

flexibility. Second, personal mastery is a special level of proficiency to keep an open and

passionate attitude for life-long learning rather than dominance over other people and things

(Senge, 2006). In order to create a learning organization, people who work in the organization

need the discipline of personal mastery to learn new things and maintain the will to work with

others. Senge (2006) said “organizations learn only through individuals who learn” (p. 139).

All people have assumptions, images, ideas, and stories about a person, organization,

community, and the world (Senge, 2006). In the third discipline, mental models are understood

simply as what most people call stereotypes and generalizations about things. According to
 265

Senge (2006), what is most important is that mental models determine how people act. A person

would act a certain way around someone who he thinks is trustworthy and would act differently

around a person who he thinks is not trustworthy. Therefore, in order to construct a learning

organization, people in the organization should test, improve, and critically securitize negative

assumptions about human behaviors and practices and foster openness to differences (Senge,

2006). The fourth discipline is to build a shared vision among people involved in the

organization. Collective learning becomes more effective when all involved people share a

collective vision that they truly want to accomplish (Senge, 2006). In most organizations, the

vision is not a collective vision. It usually comes from one person or a handful group of people

who are in charge and this vision is often imposed on the rest of the organization (Senge, 2006).

A shared vision needs to be embraced by the personal vision of individuals involved because

people do not care for a vision that does not personally matter to them (Senge, 2006). For

example, the Avery’s vision was set by the former director, Ken. Most staff members said that he

did not communicate about his vision with other staff members enough, and staff members did

not feel that his vision mattered to them. That’s why most staff members felt that the museum

did not have a shared vision for the future. The Avery has to find ways to share a similar vision

in each staff member’s mind, while how to achieve it can be varied depending on their

responsibilities and tasks. Effective communication plays an important role in sharing a vision

among many people who hold different values and beliefs.

The last discipline Senge (2006) suggests is team learning. Its premise is that members

can learn and grow more rapidly when they learn to work together (Senge, 2006). Team learning

can bring out more intelligence from many minds than one mind can provide, and it fosters

institutional trust that people in the organization complement each other’s actions (Senge, 2006).
 266

Team learning can be possible when team members support each one another through instructing

and enhancing each other’s practices and skills (Senge, 2006). Effective team learning requires

effective communication through dialogue and discussion (Senge, 2006). Dialogues allow “free

and creative exploration of complex and subtle issues” (Senge, 2006, p. 237) while discussion is

the process to present and defend different views in the search of the best view to support

decisions. As I explained in Chapter Seven describing the work culture of the Avery, staff

members at the Avery may lack the discipline of team learning.

According to Senge (2006), these five disciplines have to work together in order to

construct a learning organization. Achieving only one of them will not lead to a learning

organization, not to mention it is impossible because it is against the very first discipline of

systems thinking.

The Avery is not a fixed entity but a culture and process constructed by social

relationships and communication that are continually being reconstructed (Pacanowsky &

O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1984). How people, who are involved with the Avery’s practices,

communicate with each other and with their community will determine where the museum will

stand in the future. As many participants said, the Avery cannot be a traditional art museum in

this blue-collar community with a small group of traditional visual art supporters. It needs to step

up, be out there, and be active. It needs to build its own image, identity, roles, and presence in

the community in order to be an integrated part of the larger community.

Research Questions and Answers

I explored this dissertation with three research questions: 1) How is an art museum

connected to its community? 2) How do the museum’s primary services (exhibitions and

programs) and practices influence the museum’s visitorship and perceptions among community
 267

members? 3) What is the work culture of the Avery, and how does the work culture influence the

museum’s overall practice? In this section, I explain how and where I answered each question in

my dissertation.

Question One

In Chapters Four and Five, I answered the first question—How is an art museum

connected to its community?—through examining the museum in relation to the community’s

economic, demographic, cultural, and educational environments. By investigating the history of

the museum and community, I also explained how they have coevolved. For example, changes in

major industries from heavy manufacturing and agriculture to service, tourism, and education

created more demand for arts, cultural, and informal educational organizations. Due to these

changes, the Avery moved to a larger facility downtown to serve more people, and its target

audiences became broader to include all River City residents. The museum also responded to

changing needs of the community by revising its mission that now focuses more on education

than on collecting and researching. That the museum is an integrated part of the community is

emphasized by the fact that the museum’s board members, staff, docents, and volunteers are also

River City residents who love the community and believe that helping the Avery and other

educational institutions will help the community in general.

In addition, in the first section of Chapter Six and the conclusion section in Chapter

Eight, I discussed how the Avery has influenced lives of people in River City through its

educational programs, outreach lessons for K-12 children, art-making classes, and special

projects. Explained in Chapter Four and the conclusion section of Chapter Eight, I discussed the

economic connection between the museum and community: that the museum attracts businesses

and desired workforces to the community and the museum is a hub for regional tourist
 268

destination, stimulating the economy of the community. As explained in Chapter Six in the first

section on museum’s exhibitions and programs and in Chapter Eight’s conclusion, the Avery has

been one of the leading visual arts educational institutions in the community by being part of the

community’s informal cultural and educational infrastructure.

Question Two

Through examining the Avery’s exhibitions and programs and the community’s

perception about the museum in Chapter Six, I answered the second question: How do the

museum’s primary services (exhibitions and programs) and practices influence the museum’s

visitorship and perceptions among community members? I investigated what kind of exhibitions

and programs are popular among community members in River City. Community members like

museum services that are relevant to their daily lives as well as arts and culture of the Midwest.

For example, practical art exhibitions, such as craft and furniture shows and regionalist art

exhibitions are popular among community members. Visitors also shared that they would like

something that is more participatory, active, and easy to understand even if they are not directly

related to visual arts or aesthetic education. On the other hand, many shared that they do not feel

comfortable visiting the museum just for exhibitions and programs that are heavy on Western art

history and aesthetic interpretation of significant works of art or artifacts. Visitors also did not

appreciate the museum’s art history terminology-heavy labels that are difficult understand and do

not connect to their personal experiences and backgrounds. Because most of the museum’s

programs and exhibitions are based on art history and aesthetic interpretation of artworks, the

museum’s primary visitors tend to be well educated and socioeconomically affluent, having

sufficient cultural capital to understand and speak about art in museum settings. Therefore, some
 269

community members feel that the museum is elitist and that is only for a handful of highly

educated and affluent people in the community.

There are other factors that suggest why the museum tends to attract a certain group of

people and why some think it is elitist, uninviting, and uncomfortable to visit. People in the

community do not appreciate the museum’s new building because of its expensive and

contemporary look. Furthermore, some people are scared away from the museum because of its

physical appearance. The River City has a small visual art supporting community, and most

people do not value visual arts. They feel that they need special education or background to

understand art and participate in the Avery’s activities. Finding ways to eliminate this perception

of negativity and the mysterious qualities of visual arts would be the first step for making

community members feel comfortable visiting the Avery.

Question Three

Lastly, in Chapter Seven, I answered the third question: What is the work culture of the

Avery, and how does the work culture influence the museum’s overall practice? By examining

the Avery’s internal communication systems, communication challenges, and dynamic

relationships and tensions among staff members and department, I drew a picture of the Avery’s

internal work culture that shapes the museum’s overall services that are used by community

members. The Avery staff and board members communicate with each other through face-to-

face meetings while emails, memorandums, and meeting minutes are used for indirect

communication to distribute mass information. While the museum has regular meetings

scheduled, sometimes communication gets lost and is not effective. Subsequently, not everybody

is involved in major decision-making processes and in important activities. There are redundant

overlaps in departments’ tasks because of lack of communication and collaboration.

 270

The museum’s divided office space having the curatorial department on the first floor and

rest of them on the second floor does not help foster interdepartmental communication and

collaboration. In addition, there are tensions and unpleasant personal problems among staff

members that are rarely addressed in staff meetings, which deteriorates the museum’s

communication system even more. The work culture of the museum affects the museum’s final

services such as exhibitions and programs. For example, while the museum’s exhibitions and

programs are meant to follow one cohesive theme, the education and curatorial departments do

not work together to create both services from the outset. Therefore, sometimes the museum’s

programs and exhibitions are not very cohesive. I suggested that the museum has to find ways to

be a more effective learning organization that grows to be better for the future. Becoming a

learning organization also means that there is a collaborative and supportive work culture that

fosters involved staff members to work together for the same vision and to be inclusive of

diverse perspectives.

What I Learned from My Research and Writing Process

By conducting this study, I came to understand that the Avery has a unique

organizational culture that distinguishes it from other organizations. Even two art museums that

have similar missions have different organizational cultures. Ethnography was the proper

methodology for studying this unique museum culture that is surrounded by the interrelated

realities of community members, demographics, cultural and educational infrastructure, and the

economic system.

Before I conducted this study, I wrote a theory article about a museum ecosystem model

that is similar to the systems theory and cultural approach that I have explained and used in this

study. What I did not realize in that article is that I did not quite understand how complex and
 271

messy museums are and that there are so many elements that shape a museum organization and

its overall practices. Through conducting this study, I was immersed in the museum and its

community, and I learned that an organization or art museum is a complex organization and

cannot be understood completely by an outside researcher. In fact, understanding an organization

fully can be difficult because organizations keep changing and coevolving in relation to other

shifts in the community. Furthermore, if someone else had conducted this research, the

understanding of the museum and its community would have been different.

Through this study, I also learned that there are many elements and factors—including

organizational structure; the culture of work and employment; the museum collection; the

physical spaces; and the economic, cultural, democratic, and educational characteristics of the

community—that shape the museum’s overall practices. Before I collected data, I did not think

that the exterior of the building would affect the Avery’s visitorship; but, indeed, it prevents

some people from visiting the museum because it looks rather expensive and very different from

other buildings in town. There could be many more interrelated elements that shape the

museum’s overall effectiveness and impact on the community, which are not discussed in this

study but could be found in future research.

I recognize that doing research is a messy and complex process. Writing a dissertation is

even messier and more complex than I ever imagined. At the beginning of the data collection

process, I underestimated the process of writing and how long it takes to produce quality work

that can be useful for as many people as possible. While collecting data could be the most

important part of doing qualitative research, I struggled with the daunting task of data

management, analysis, interpretation, contemplation, and the final write up of the entire

dissertation. I continually rethought, reorganized, reinterpreted, and rewrote the dissertation.

 272

Even if my dissertation is considered finished now, my thoughts and perspectives will change as

I conduct more studies or revise the current one for publications. Doing research is a never-

ending process, and I enjoy the creative aspect of it. When my studies are shared with many

people through publications and presentations, it is very rewarding because they may shape other

people’s perspectives, theories, and practices.

Writing the dissertation made me a better researcher, who is confident but humble. I

experienced my maximum capacity to think and create, but at the same time I recognized that I

cannot possibly know about everything. I kept confronting new concepts and studies that are

fascinating and helped me develop my ideas and theories. Especially, I am fascinated by

organizational studies that are done more in the business sector than in museums. While I studied

and included them in my study as much as possible, I know there are more to be studied and

explored. My desire to pursue organizational studies and business management will be further

explained in the next section in describing my future research direction.

Future Research Direction

I intend to share this dissertation with the Avery staff members and other informants in

River City. Most participants, especially museum staff members, were interested in reading the

final report because they believed my study could shed light on the Avery’s practices, including

positive aspects, challenges, and suggestions, which they may not have been able to discuss on a

daily basis. I also would like to share my study with more diverse audiences in the field of

museum studies and art education through publications and academic presentations both

nationally and internationally. While I will produce several journal articles that are based on this

dissertation, my final goal is to publish it in book form that may be read by a broader audience,

that is, people who are intrinsically interested in museums, not just scholars or professionals.
 273

Through this project, I came to understand that ethnography is a powerful tool for

examining an organization in terms of its surrounding community. I also believe that this

methodology can be applied to other arts, cultural, and educational organizations. In fact,

ethnography is broadly used in the field of general education for studying schools and students’

learning processes (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Gilmore & Glatthorn, 1982). I would like to

conduct more ethnographic case studies of other museums and non-profit organizations in the

near future. Since this dissertation is my first time conducting this type of research, I made some

mistakes, and wish that I had handled some things differently. For example, I regret that I did not

socialize more with certain staff members at the museum and was not aggressive enough in

scheduling interviews with certain people who were not sure about how they could inform my

study as participants. Through reflecting on my first experience conducting this type of study, I

will be a better researcher next time when I conduct a similar study.

As I shared in the previous section, I would like to explore more about organizational

studies and business management that are suitable for museum organization and management. I

have a basic understanding of these theories, concepts, and scholars through a literature review in

organizational studies, but I would like to study them more in depth. My plan for the future is to

study Business Administration or Public Administration through degree programs, which will

help me conduct better ethnographic case studies of arts and cultural organizations and provide

legitimacy as a scholar who studies and theorizes about museums as cultural and systemic

organizations.
 274

APPENDIX A: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS’ PSEUDONYMS AND TITLES

Allison—director of marketing and membership

Amy—former student at the Museum Studies program and museum intern
Andy—local artist and art professor
Ben—catering manager
Bill—facility manager
Bonnie—local artist and art professor
Callie—board member, director of the Chambers of Commerce in River City
Carol—director of museum services
Diana—docent
Deborah—board member and former interim director
Donald—visitor
Ed—chief financial officer
Elizabeth—visitor services
Emily—outreach coordinator
Enrica—associate curator
Jack—former part-time senior curator
Jackie—director of the Children’s Museum
James—director of corporate and foundation relations
Jason—director of local community-based theater studio
Jessica—preparator
Jillian—committee member
John—assistant facility manager
Josh—former director of development
Joyce— youth and family programs coordinator
Julie—store manager
Karen—administrative assistant
Ken—former director
Lilly—visitor
Mary Jane—curator of education
Michael—director of convention and visitors bureau in River City
Patricia—board member
Paul—visitor
Peter—visitor
Rebecca—education assistant
Reta—director of development
Roy—local artist and art professor
Sarah—former student of the Museum Studies program and museum intern, professor of
communication in local university
Scott—director of security
Ted—registrar
Tina—director of the Museum Studies program
Tom—former public school teacher and current museum volunteer
 275

APPENDIX B: INSTITUTIONAL PLAN FOR THE AVERY ART MUSEUM

Approved by the board of trustees

December 18, 2007

Vision Statement

The Avery Art Museum aims to be a museum with a nationally recognized art collection within
six years and to be the premier school of art and art history in the region within six years. The
region is defined as the River City metropolitan area and comprises four counties. This region
covers over 149,000 households and over 376,000 people.

Multi-year Plan (i.e. strategic or long-range plan)

Goals

1) Collections: build an art collection with a national reputation for quality and interest
within six years;
2) Education: make the School of Avery Art Museum (SAAM) the most popular and
highest quality art and art history school in the region within six years;
3) Finance & Development: achieve full financial independence within six years.

Strategies

1) Collections:
 put on popular and high quality shows which appeal to all age segments of the
population;
 partner with individuals and organizations to sponsor, support, and/or promote
traveling and in-house exhibitions;
 acquire and borrow significant works of art and nationally-recognized collections
from donors;
 build a national reputation for the collection by establishing national pre-eminence in
at least two mainstream areas (e.g., American Regionalism).

2) Education:
 offer popular and high quality art and art history courses to all age segments of the
population (e.g., art lessons for pre-school children, art history for senior citizens);
 offer the collection as a resource for teachers in non-art subjects (e.g., use Audubon
prints for environmental education);
 engage each age group via partner umbrella organizations (e.g., offer art courses to
reach more retired people);
 establish degree programs in art, art history, and museum studies in partnership with
regional colleges and universities (e.g., Master's Degree in Museum Studies).
 276

3) Finance & Development:

 raise adequate money for operational expenses and raise adequate money for
endowment plans;
 manage investments well (e.g., ensure endowment portfolio income exceeds spend
rate plus inflation);
 keep costs under control whilst ensuring adequate support for key functions and
allowing for needed growth (e.g., reallocating resources while staying within
approved budget levels);
 involve more sponsors and advertisers.

Specific Objectives

1) Collections:
 plan shows based on target audiences and SAAM programs, and current and planned
educational relationships;
 plan partnerships based on target audiences and exhibition requirements for each
show;
 survey existing collection and identify deficiencies; identify major collections within
board and supporter network that would address these deficiencies, establish
relationship with executive director and/or curator of collections, and make timely
approach;
 identify two internationally significant art movements and dedicate resources to
building a collection of national repute (e.g., Henry Moore and 20th-century British
art).

2) Education:
 plan courses based on target audiences and requirements of partner organizations;
 establish relations with senior executives in significant educational establishments in
the region and identify how the SAAM can add value;
 identify and form partnerships with the major organizations dealing with each age
segment of the population;
 further existing relationships with presidents, arts faculty deans, and art/art history
department heads at local colleges and universities and demonstrate how meseum
resources will strengthen their degree programs in art, art history, and other academic
areas.

3) Finance & Development:

 identify potential major donors within board and supporter network, establish
relationship with executive director, and make timely approach; raise $800k annually
for operations; raise endowment to $20m within three years; raise a further $30m
within six years (making endowment a total of $50m);
 diversify investments, invest in areas of expertise, and negotiate lower fees.
 keep annual cost increases for current programs at inflation; provide analytical data to
other departments on key metrics;
 277

 use development department to seek sponsors and advertisers for shows and to
explore other advertising opportunities not related to exhibitions.

This document is slightly modified to protect the museum’s identity.

 278

APPENDIX C: THE AVERY ART MUSEUM BOARD OF TRUSTEES’ MEETING AGENDA

July 14, 2011

I. Call the Meeting to Order

II. Welcome and Introduction of New Board Members
III. Consent Agenda Items
a. A & E Committee Report
b. Education Committee Report
c. Executive Committee Report
d. Finance Committee Report
IV. Motions for Approval
a. Minutes-May 12, 2011
b. Consent Agenda
c. A & E Committee Motions - 2 motions
V. Election of Officers
VI. Development Update
a. Update on Endowment Campaign Planning
VII. Art Talk
VIII. Finance Review
IX. Other
a. Director Search Update
b. FY12 Board Member Contract renewals - status
X. Adjourn
 279

APPENDIX D: MY INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AVERY ART MUSEUM

Yuha Jung’s Observations of and Recommendations to the Avery Art Museum

First of all, I would like to say that I am in no position to say anything about how the
museum operates and how you manage the museum and develop and create exhibitions,
programs, and other special events. This reporting is based on my observations and
communications and interactions with staff members, visitors, and community members.
Many people told me that communication and collaboration can be improved among staff
members, departments, and other cultural and educational institutions. I heard many times that
departments and staff members tend to work in their individual silos and do not efficiently and
sufficiently share what is going on with their own work. I think open communication and sharing
more information among departments and staff members would be helpful. Working together as
a team from the outset to develop exhibitions and related educational programs is a great way to
understand each other’s work and save time that could be wasted by planning similar things
individually. Especially curatorial and education departments could work very closely to create
cohesive and well-planned sets of programs and exhibitions. I think more collaboration could be
done with other museums and cultural institutions in the area. You could share information and
help each other rather than competing.
You could share authority to curate shows and write labels. The docent picked show is a
great example. You could do more of that by inviting local artists and professors or even
students. The labels could be written in different voices allowing personal connections to chosen
artwork. I heard a lot from people who I interviewed that the labels are not written in language
that can be understood by many people in the community. I am not recommending dumbing
down the content and knowledge, but academic terms and jargon could be avoided. If it’s
necessary to use those words, you could explain what they mean using common expressions. The
length could be shorter and supplemented by in-depth information in a booklet or gallery guide
located in the galleries.
Since the museum has limited manpower and resources, finding common interests among
community members is important. Maybe a non-visitor study would be helpful. You could ask
them why they don’t visit the museum and what kind of art exhibitions, activities, and services
they want to experience at the Avery. It would also be helpful to know what they think of as art
and how they use it in everyday life. You could use the students in the Museum Studies program
to conduct non-visitor studies. Tina, the director of the program, said she would be interested in
that as well.
More family days and arts in the ballpark kind of projects are really good ways to reach
out to those who might not visit the museum otherwise. I heard from many people that the Avery
is seen as an elitist institution in the River City area. By going out to where people are rather than
waiting for them to come through the door is a great way to show that the Avery cares about
people in the community and wants them to visit the Avery. I think overcoming the negative
perception about the museum in the community is critical in order to bring more diverse people,
new audiences into the museum.
The building can be a challenge. It is a beautiful building but not everybody thinks so,
and it creates some negative impressions and experiences for some visitors and community
members. For example, people say that the lobby area is intimidating and the café is closed most
of the time. I understand that the café being open all the time does not make sense considering
 280

the fact that you do not get that many visitors. However, you could sell something very small,
some drinks and cookies and muffins not to make money but to make visitors comfortable and
enjoy in the museum. If it breaks even, I think it is worth doing.
Many people talked about the outer appearance of the building. Although it is beautiful,
there is no identifying signage. It is difficult to tell that it is an art museum unless you look at it
up close. It looks lifeless. I know that putting something on the building could hinder the
architect’s original aesthetic vision, but I think it needs to come to alive and show a hint of what
the museum offers inside the building.
I also hope that you can open the library to the general public and provide free Wi-Fi
service for people who want to study your archives and collection or who just want to use the air
conditioning and free Internet access. If I were a student in the River City looking for a nice,
quiet place to work, I would buy a membership just for that.
I think expanding the meanings, styles, and genres of arts that are presented at the
museum would be a great way to attract and develop new visitors and members. I know that the
museum is trying to hold music and performing arts events in relation to exhibitions and
educational programs. I think that’s a great way to tell people that the Avery is not just about a
beautiful building with untouchable paintings on the walls but a place for social interaction and
community engagement.
I also heard from many people that they feel like they do not know what to do in
museums and they feel uncomfortable walking into the museum without having an art
background. You could publish something about what you can do in the museum or offer free
classes or workshops on how to use the museum as a tool for learning new things and social
engagement.
I think a clear vision is needed. What you can do is limited but it can be in-depth and of
great quality if you have a clear vision about what the museum wants to be for its community.
Looking at the big picture and working toward the future would be a great strategy or mindset
for establishing the museum as a very important educational institution in the community for
many years to come.
Lastly, I want to thank all of you for being so helpful and friendly. I do not think I could
have done this type of research in other museums. I hope this is helpful and look forward to
sharing my final write up with all of you.
 281

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 337–392). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Allen, T. J. (1997). Architecture and communication among project development engineers.

Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2682/SWP-3983-

38485315.pdf?sequence=1

American Association of Museums. (1992). Data report from the 1989 National Museum

Survey. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

American Association of Museums. (2002). Museums and diversity: A national initiative to

foster and sustain inclusive practices. Retrieved from http://www.aam-

us.org/museumresources/div/National-Statement-on-Diversity.cfm

American Association of Museums. (2011). A snapshot of America’s museums. Retrieved from

http://www.aam-us.org/am11/upload/AAM-2011-press-kit-

Financial_Snapshot_of_Museums_-2011_ed-Final.pdf

Ames, M. M. (2006). Counterfeit museology. The International Journal of Museum Management

and Curatorship, 21(3), 171–186.

Anacostia Community Museum (n.d.). Mission and history. Retrieved from

http://anacostia.si.edu/Museum/Mission_History.htm

Anderson, M. (2010, June 8). Gather, steward, and converse. The Art Newspaper. Retrieved from

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Gather-Steward-and-Converse/21513
 282

Angrosino, M. (2005). Recontextualizing observation: Ethnography, pedagogy, and the prospects

for a progressive political agenda. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 729–745). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Barker, C. (2004). The Sage dictionary of cultural studies. London: Sage Publications.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barone, T. (2007). A return to the gold standard?: Questioning the future of narrative

construction as educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(4), 454–470.

Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies. London: Routledge.

Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, H. S. (1998). Imagery. In H. S. Becker, Tricks of the trade: How to think about your

research while you’re doing it (pp. 10–66). Chicago and London: The University of

Chicago Press.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY:

Harper & Row.

Benton, D. P. (1979). Intergenerational interaction in museums. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 40, 2289A.

Best Practices in Museum Exhibition Writing. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.museum-

ed.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102%3Abest-practices-in-

museum-exhibition-writing-2010&catid=37%3Acurrent-practice-

interpretation&Itemid=86

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2002). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to

theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
 283

Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing leadership. In J. Gallos (Ed.), Business

leadership (pp. 35–49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Bowsher, C. (1999). Total quality management in museums: An investigation into the adaptive

relevance of TQM in the museums sector. In K. Moore (Ed.), Management in Museums

(pp. 233–273). London, UK: The Athlone Press.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock

Publications Limited.

Cabrera, R. (2006). Beyond the museum walls. Museum News, 85(4), 35–38.

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York:

Anchor Books.

Child, J. (1973). Predicting and understanding organization structure. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 18(2), 168–185.

Coles, R. (1992). Whose museums? American Art, 6(1), 6–11.

Conaty, G.T., & Carter, B. (2005). Our story in our words: Diversity and equality in the

Glenbow Museum. In R.R. Janes, & G.T. Conaty (Eds.), Looking reality in the eye:

Museums and social responsibility (pp. 43–58). Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary

Press.

Dana, J. C. (1917). The new museum. Woodstock, VT: The Elm Tree Press.

Davies, C. A. (2007). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. New

York, NY: Routledge.

 284

Day, M. D. (1998). Art education: Essential for a balanced education. NASSP Bulletin, 82(597),

1–7.

Deetz, S. (1982). Critical interpretive research in organizational communication. Western

Journal of Speech Communication, 46(2), 131–149.

Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new

handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dickenson, V. (1994). An inquiry into the relationship between museum boards and

management. In Kevin Moor (Ed.), Museum management (pp. 95–103). London and New

York: Routledge.

DiMaggio, P. (1991). Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston: The creation of an

organizational base for high culture in America. In C. Mukerji & M. Schudson (Eds.),

Rethinking popular culture: Contemporary perspectives in cultural studies (pp. 374–

397). California: University of California Press.

Dobrzynski, J. H. (2010, August 24). No more ‘cathedrals of culture.’ The Wall Street Journal.

Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575435823569073064.html

Doyle, M., & Straus, D. (1976). How to make meetings work. New York, NY: Jove Books.

Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Ellenbogen, K. M. (2002). Museums in family life: An ethnographic case study. In G. Leinhardt,

K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 81–101).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

 285

Falbel, A. (1993). Learning? Yes, of course. Education? No thanks. Growing Without

Schooling, 92, 13-14.

Falk, J. H. (1982). The use of time as a measure of visitor behavior and exhibit effectiveness. The

Journal of Museum Education: Roundtable Reports, 7 (4), 10–13.

Falk, J. H. (1998). Visitors: Who does, who doesn’t, and why. Museum News, 77(2), 38–43.

Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the

making of meaning. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

Falk, J. H. (2009). Identity and the museum visitor experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast

Press.

Farnell, G. (1984). Team briefing: A means of improving communicating with the museum. The

International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 3(2), 153–157.

Farrell, B., & Medvedeva, M. (2010). Demographic transformation and the future of museums.

Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Fleming, D. (1999). Leadership. In K. Moore (Ed.), Management in Museums (pp. 93–107).

London, UK: The Athlone Press.

Fleming, D. (2002). Positioning the museum for social inclusion. In R. Sandell (Ed.), Museums,

society, inequality (pp. 213–224). London: New York: Routledge.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure,

community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 361–376). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

 286

Friman, H. (2006). A museum without walls. Museum International, 58(3), 55–59.

Frisch, B. (2012). Who’s in the room?: How great leaders structure and manage the teams

around them. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fulk, J., & Collins-Jarvis, L. (2001). Technological mediation of organizational gatherings. In F.

M. Jablin, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication:

Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 624–663). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Genoways, H. H., & Ireland, L. M. (2003). Museum administration: An introduction. Walnut

Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Gilmore, P., & Glatthorn, A. (1982). Children in and out of school. Washington, DC: Center for

Applied Linguistics.

Glesne, C. (2005). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Graham, J. W., & Havlick, W. C. (1994). Mission statements: A guide to the corporate and

nonprofit sectors. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Gray, S. R., & Graham, M. A. (2007). This is the right place: Community-based art education at

Utah’s Springville Museum of Art. The Journal of Museum Education, 32(3), 301–310.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and

greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Guetzkow, H. (1965). Communications in organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of

Organizations. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Company.

 287

Gullatt, D. E. (2007). Research links the arts with student academic gains. The Educational

Forum, 71(3), 211–220.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Handy, C. (1993). Understanding organizations: How understanding the ways organizations

actually work can be used to manage them better. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Hargreaves, R. (1997). Developing new audiences at the National Portrait Gallery, London. In E.

Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), Cultural diversity: Developing museum audiences in Britain (pp.

183–202). London: Leicester University Press.

Harper, D. (1994). On the authority of the image: Visual methods at the crossroads. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp.

118–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hirzy, E. C. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence and equity: Education and the public dimension of

museums. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1995). Museums and communication: An introductory essay. In E.

Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.), Museum, media, message (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., pp.

428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

James, P. (1996). Building a community-based identity at Anacostia Museum. Curator, 39,

19–44.
 288

Janes, R. R. (1999). Embracing organizational change in museums: A work in progress. In K.

Moore (Ed.), Management in Museums (pp. 7–27). London, UK: The Athlone Press.

Janes, R. R. (2009). Museums in a troubled world: Renewal, irrelevance or collapse? Abingdon,

Oxon and New York, NY: Routledge.

Judkis, M. (2011, October 20). Occupy museums to protest at art exhibits in New York. The

Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-

post/post/occupy-museums-to-protest-at-art-exhibits-in-new-

york/2011/10/20/gIQAkwnQ0L_blog.html

Kagan, R. L. (2002). Civic engagement starts with the board. In Mastering civic engagement: A

challenge to museums (pp. 69–70). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Kahn, H., & Garden, S. (1994). Job attitudes and occupational stress in the United Kingdom

museum sector: A pilot study. In K. Moore (Ed.), Museum management (pp. 193–211).

London, UK: Routledge.

Keifer-Boyd, K. (in press). Critical action research activism: Social structure and human

agency. In M. L. Buffington & S. Wilson McKay (Eds.), Practice theory: Seeing the

power of teacher researchers. Reston, VA: The National Art Education Association.

Kelly, L. (2006, November). Measuring the impact of museums on their communities: The role

of the 21st century museums. Paper presented at the 2006 INTERCOM Conference,

Taipei, Taiwan. Retrieved from http://www.intercom.museum/documents/1-2Kelly.pdf

Kotler, N., & Kotler, P. (1998). Museum strategy and marketing: Designing missions, building

audiences, generating revenue and resources. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kreps, C. (2003). Curatorship as social practice. Curator, 46(3), 311–323.

 289

Langworthy, G., & Henein, M. (directors). (2009). Vanishing of the bees [Motion picture].

United Kingdom: Hive Mentality Films & Hipfuel Films.

Lavine, S. D., & Karp, I. (1991). Introduction: Museums and multiculturalism. In I. Karp, & S.

D. Lavine (Eds.), Exhibition cultures: The poetics and politics of museum display (pp. 1–

9). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing

differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2004). Death by meeting: A leadership fable about solving the most painful

problem in business. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2006). Silos, politics, and turf wars: A leadership fable about destroying the

barriers that turn colleagues into competitors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2012). The advantage: Why organizational health trumps everything else in

business. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, K., Llippit, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally

created social climates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269–299.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Linett, P., Patton, C. C., & Gariba, C. (2011, July). Non-visitor studies: Researching the needs

and experiences of new audiences. In P. Linett (Chair), Sustaining a community of

learners. Visitor Studies Association, Chicago, IL.

Low, T. L. (1942). The museum as a social instrument. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of

Art.
 290

Lufkin, M. (2009). America is changing—but are its art museums? Art Newspaper, 18(204).

Retrieved from http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/america-is-changing-but-are-

its-art-museums?/18563

MacLeod, J. (2009). Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income

neighborhood (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Management Study Guide. (n.d.). Management and Administration. Retrieved from

http://www.managementstudyguide.com/management_administration.htm

Marsden, P. V., Cook, C. R., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1994). Organizational structures: Coordination

and control. The American Behavioral Scientist, 37(7), 911–929.

Marzio, P. C. (1991). Minorities and fine-arts museums in the United States. In I. Karp & S. D.

Lavine (Eds.), Exhibition cultures: The poetics and politics of museum display (pp. 121–

127). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Marzio, P. C. (1998). Foreword. In B. B. Schneider, A place for all people (pp. 8-10). Houston:

The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McClellan, A. (2003). A brief history of art museum public. In A. McClellan, Art and its publics:

Museum studies at the millennium (pp. 1–50). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In S.B. Merriam (Ed.), Qualitative

research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 3–17). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.
 291

Merritt, E. E. (2010). Where do we go from here: A call to action. In B. Farrell & M.

Medvedeva, Demographic transformation and the future of museums (pp. 30–31).

Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Moore, K. (1994). Introduction: Museum management. In K. Moore (Ed.), Museum management

(pp. 1–14). London, UK: Routledge.

Museums & Galleries Commission. (1992). Museums Matter. London: Museums & galleries

Commission.

National Endowment for the Arts. (2004). 2002 survey of public participation in the arts:

Summary report (Research division report #45). Washington, DC: National Endowment

for the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.nea.gov/research/NEASurvey2004.pdf

National Endowment for the Arts. (2009). 2008 survey of public participation in the arts

(research report #49). Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved

from http://www.nea.gov/research/2008-SPPA.pdf

National Endowment for the Arts. (2011). Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of

arts participation (research report #54). Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the

Arts. Retrieved from http://www.giarts.org/sites/default/files/beyond-attendance-multi-

modal-understanding-of-arts-participation%20.pdf

Nespor, J. (1997). Tangled up in school: Politics, space, bodies, and signs in the educational

process. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Nightingale, E. (2011). From the margins to the core? Working with culturally diverse

communities at the V&A Museum. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum,

3(3), 49–64.
 292

O’Doherty, B. (1986). Inside the white cube: The ideology of the gallery space. San Francisco,

CA: The Lapis Press.

O’Neill, M. (2002). The good enough visitors. In R. Sandell (Ed.), Museums, society, inequality

(pp. 24–40). London: New York: Routledge.

Ostrower, F. (2005). The diversity of cultural participation: Findings from a national survey

report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Pacanowsky, M., & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983). Organizational communication as cultural

performance. Communication monographs, 50(2), 127–147.

Patton, M., & Westby, C. (1992). Ethnography and research: A qualitative view. Topics in

Language Disorders, 12(3), 1–14.

Perrin, S. (1994). Education in the arts is an education for life. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 452–

453.

Peters, J., & Wolfred, T. (2001). Daring to lead: Nonprofit executive directors and their work

experience. San Francisco: CompassPoint Nonprofit Services. Retrieved from

http://www.compasspoint.org/sites/default/files/docs/research/5_daring.pdf

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from American’s best-

run companies. New York, NY: Warner Books.

Polkinghorne, D. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. Hatch, & R.

Wisniewski (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp. 5–24). London, UK: Falmer.

Powell, K. (2010). Making sense of place: Mapping as a multisensory research method.

Qualitative Inquiry, 16(7), 539–555.

 293

Putnam, L. L., & Boys, S. (2006). Revisiting metaphors of organizational communication. In S.

R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of

organization studies (pp. 541–576). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.

Roethlisberger, F. J. (1968). Man-in-organization: Essays of F. J. Roethlisberger. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Rosenzweig, R., & Thelen, D. (1998). The presence of the past: Popular uses of history in

American life. New York: Columbia University Press.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1969). The context of organization

structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 91–114.

Sandell, R. (1998). Museums as agents of social inclusion. The International Journal of Museum

Management and Curatorship, 17(4), 401–418.

Sandell, R. (2007). Museums, prejudice, and the reframing of difference. Abingdon and

New York: Routledge.

Schneider, B. B. (1998). A place for all people. Houston: The Museum of Fine Arts,

Houston.

Schuster, J. M. (1998). Neither public nor private: The hybridization of museums. Journal of

Cultural Economics, 22, 127–150.

Schwarzer, M. (2002, May/June). Turnover at the top: Are directors burning out? Museum News.

Retrieved from http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/MN_MJ02_TurnoverDirectors.cfm

Schwarzer, M. (2006). Riches, rivals, and radicals: 100 years of museum in America.

Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums.

Seltzer, M. (2001). Securing your organization’s future: A complete guide to fundraising

strategies. New York, NY: The Foundation Center.

 294

Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York, NY: Doubleday.

Setterberg, F., & Schulman, K. (1985). Beyond profit: The complete guide to managing the

nonprofit organization. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Silverman, L. H. (2010). The social work of museums. New York, NY: Routledge.

Silverman, L. H., & O’Neill, M. (2004, November/December). Change and complexity in the

21st-century museum: The real relics in our museums may be the ways we think and

work. Museum News. Retrieved from http://www.aam-

us.org/pubs/mn/MN_ND04_ChangeComplexity.cfm

Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in

administrative organizations. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Simon, N. (2010). The participatory museum. Santa Cruz, CA: Museum 2.0.

Simon, N. (2011, October). Inspiration, strategy, and sustainability. Keynote presented at the

meeting of Mid-Atlantic Association of Museums. Baltimore, MD.

Smit, P. J. (1999). Strategic planning: Readings. Cape Town: Creda Communications.

Smithsonian. (n.d.). Our mission and vision. Retrieved from http://www.si.edu/About/Mission

Solnit, R. (2000). Wanderlust: A history of walking. New York: Penguin Books.

Sozanski, E. (2010, August 15). Art: What is art’s place in the picture? The Philadelphia

Inquirer. Retrieved from

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/entertainment/20100815_Art__What_is_art_s_place_in_t

he_picture_.html
 295

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The problem of criteria in the age of relativism. The ethnographic

interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of

qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Starratt, R. J. (1993). The drama of leadership. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.

Sternberg, R. E. (2006). Arts at the core. American School Board Journal, 193(6), 44–47.

Stetson, D. E. (2002). Building bridges. In Mastering civic engagement: A challenge to museums

(pp. 75–76). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Stokrocki, M. (1996). The ecomuseum preserves an artful way of life. Art Education, 48(4), 35–

43.

Suchy, S. (2004). Leading with passion: Change management in the 21st-century museum.

Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Sukel, W. M. (1978). Third sector organizations: A needed look at the artistic-cultural

organization. The Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 348–354.

Szekeres, V. (2002). Representing diversity and challenging racism: The Migration Museum. In

R. Sandell (Ed.), Museums, society, inequality (pp. 142–152). London and New York:

Routledge.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principle of scientific management. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Tedlock, B. (1991). From participant observation to the observation of participation: The

emergence of narrative ethnography. Journal of Anthropological Research, 47(1), 69–94.

 296

Tedlock, B. (2000). Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 455–486).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tucker, M. (1992). “Who’s on first?”: Issues of cultural equity in today’s museums. In Different

voices (pp. 9–16). New York: Association of Art Museum Directors.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

Vogel, C. (2009, March 19). In lean times, new ways to reach out. The New York Times.

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/arts/artsspecial/19strategies.html

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburg, PA: University

of Pittsburg Press.

Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: The Free

Press.

Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford, UK: Basil

Blackwell.

Weil, S. E. (1999). From being about something to being for somebody: The ongoing

transformation of the American museum. America’s Museums, 128(3), 229–258.

Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Woodward, J. (1980). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Worth, M. J. (2009). Nonprofit management: Principles and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publication.
 297

Yaeger, Don (2011). Greatness: The 16 characteristics of true champions. New York, NY:

Center Street.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.
 Vita of Yuha Jung

Education
Ph.D., Art Education, The Pennsylvania State University, December 2012
M.A., Museum Studies, Syracuse University, 2008
B.A., Painting, Yeung Nam University, 2006
Select Related Professional Experience
Visiting Assistant Professor of Art Education, 2012 – present, The University of Georgia
Instructor, 2009 – 2012, Penn State University
Instructor – Concepts and Creation in the Visual Arts, Spring 2012
Instructor – Capstone Course in Art Education, Fall 2011
Instructor – Introduction to Visual Studies, Summer 2010
Instructor – Museum Education, Fall 2009
Zoller Gallery Coordinator, 2007 – 2011, Penn State University
Museum Internships, 2007 – 2009
Penn State All Sports Museum, University Park, PA, 2008 – 2009
Erie Canal Museum, Syracuse, NY, 2008
Syracuse University Art Galleries, Syracuse, NY, 2007 – 2008
American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, 2007
Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY, 2007
Select Scholarly Publications
Jung, Y. (2011). The art museum ecosystem: A new alternative model. The International Journal of
Museum Management and Curatorship, 26(4), 321-338.
Jung, Y. (2011). Education as a ubiquitous learning web immersed in living. The Journal of
Unschooling and Alternative Learning, 5(9), 38-56.
Jung, Y. (2010). The ecological museum: Improving diversity in museum practice through an
ecological mind-set. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 3(2), 73-83.
Jung, Y. (2010). The ignorant museum: Transforming the elitist museum into an inclusive learning
place. In The new museum community: Audiences, challenges, benefits (pp. 272-290).
Edinburgh, U.K.: MuseumsETC.
Select Professional Presentations
Jung, Y. (May 2012). Using an ethnographic case study to examine organizational and communication
systems in one community’s art museum. Paper presented at the meeting of International
Congress for Qualitative Inquiry. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Jung, Y. (March 2012). The museum ecosystem: Using ethnography to examine a museum as a social
ecosystem embedded in community. Paper presented at the Seminar for Research in Art
Education, NAEA. New York, NY.
Jung, Y. (July 2011). The art museum ecosystem: A new alternative model. Paper presented at The
Fourth Inclusive Museum Conference. Johannesburg, South Africa.
Jung, Y. (November 2010). Harlem on my mind: A problematic step toward increasing cultural
diversity? Paper presented at the ICOM Conference and Annual Meeting. Shanghai, China.
Jung, Y. (July 2010). The ecological museum: Improving diversity in museum practice through an
ecological mind-set. Paper presented at The Third Inclusive Museum Conference. Istanbul,
Turkey.
Honors/Distinctions
Recipient of Penn State Dorothy Hughes Young Endowed Scholarship for Art Education (2011)
Recipient of Diversity Fellowship, American Association of Museums (2009)
Recipient of Distinguished Graduate Fellowship, Penn State University (2008 – 2009)