Musings from Museums Australia 2009: Works in Progress

[Lynda Kelly]

In the spirit of my previous post, Do we need to have conferences anymore, thought I'd at least start the ball rolling with observations from the Museums Australia Annual Conference. Well, I don't actually have any at the moment coz I'm only here from today, but we do have a Twitter backchannel happening.

My challenge to you my colleagues, is to post here one idea that you will go implement when you get back to work...

[Lynda Kelly]

Thanks for all these comments and I know they will be useful in planning next year's conference. Be interested to see how much these ideas are integrated into the program (our challenge to you and the team Laura!).

There's a great thread on the Westmuse blog that is carrying on the "why go to conferences" theme.

[Michael Parry]

Feedback in no specific order, and some of it slightly rant-y:

> Pecha Kucha would be a brilliant format to get a wide swathe of projects visible to a broad group to incite discussion (obviously great minds think alike Gillian - I'd mentioned that very idea to others at the conference.) More on how that format works: here.

> MAPDA needs to expand to cover non-print/digital materials. Specifically exhibition design, but also to acknowledge other key realms of cultural heritage expression. I spoke to Jude about that, and am going to come up with a suggested framework that *doesn't* involve 75 categories. [That's one of my *things* to come out of the conference]

> Curating the program. There are key issues that need to be covered in discussions, I think the approach of sitting back and waiting for papers to turn up and then attempting to mix them into sessions isn't really going to ensure that the topics that need attention are going to be there. The sustainability sessions I went to were pretty woeful (sorry to those invovled!), but this is a massive issue for all of us. Other examples of *real* issues that were absent: realigning organisations around the digital pressure, GFC: what are we actually all doing to tackle this? review of major investments (the only major investment we looked at was the NPG, and even then it was pretty light) What about talking about where the $M have been spent in the past 12 months? Are we spending (as a sector) in the 'right' way? Are our major projects 'successful'? KPIs - we are starting to try to get some attempts at alignment about online measurement - isn't it time we got real about how else we measure and compare ourselves? Getting good discussion around these kind of topics requires *selection* of speakers, and possibly some arm-twisting rather than expecting volunteers.

> Use the local environment better. While I know that this is time consuming, it would have been great for CMD and the Newcastle Museum team to have run a session on their planning/design process - IN THE ACTUAL SPACE. Exposing some process around projects that are local to the area would enable delegates to see things in action/insitu, rather than guessing from images on PPT slides [*a good reason to have carbon based conferences*] Again, this is something I'll undertake to help provide in MEL next year.

Cheers,
Michael

[Ann Baillie]

I thought the programming of the Sunday Regional and Remote plenaries was a highlight. I also appreciated the successful representation of Indigenous perspectives throughout the Conference. I agree with many of the comments above:
Face to Face is still needed
More discussion time would be good
I think the many diverse streams within MA should have opportunities for masterclasses and smaller group discussion sessions. For a number of years, the R&R programming has included practical workshop sessions but why not also have these pre conference workshops/masterclasses for directors and all the SIGS? AAM's programming is worth a look in this regard.
Thanks to the Newcastle team- hope they are resting up.

[Isobel Kindley]

I too enjoyed the chance to have a good long chat with work collegues and old friends from other places. Memorials plenary session the outstanding session for me. It offered me new information and food for thought which is what I look for. Missed getting out and about to other venues and galleries as all sessions were in the one building. I never got to the fort museum (sorry don't recall what it is called) as I ran out of free time unfortunately. Agree with Frank and Gillian about having different session formats and using the attendees and speakers in a better way - definately would have liked more question/discussion time. Fascinated to see the increased interest and use of the web and web 2.0 - would have been nice to have a place to explore the sites spoken about. Could we have a 'web site poster session' set up perhaps?

[Brendan Smith]

hi Lynda - thanks for the opportunity to comment. Really enjoyed the conference and the opportunity to meet up and hear from so many people and different perspectives - very inspiring. However, my thoughts on the format were as follows:
I definitely agree with Frank and Pauline's comments above - less is more, more time for discussion and interaction, less time sitting in chairs being talked at; in these days of ever shitfing digital interaction and 'convergence', surely our human/in-person interactions need to involve more exchange, open participation, especially in the parallel and break-out sessions. This did occur, especially at meal breaks, evening functions and informal dinners, but great if it can be woven into the conference structure more. Also, some of the papers delivered were effectively academic treatises, in that style and language - I didn't feel that was really appropriate for the conference, and speakers (even if their presentation is based on academic research or work) should be required to revisit their work and deliver a more user-friendly presentation. There were a couple where the central ideas and concepts were really interesting but got lost in the academic language and by being 'read' to an audience, rather than presented in an engaging and engaged way.
Just some random thoughts from a new-comer - but overall, really enjoyed the conference and the experience. Cheers

[Barbara Piscitelli]

Agree that there needs to be a more collegial style of idea sharing at conferences - one that generates dialogue and provokes new ideas - not just repeated "show and tell" episodes. The diversity of interests and experiences at a conference like a museums meeting means that the options need to cater for everyone (newcomers, directors, researchers, special interest groups (conservators, educators, public programs people, curators) as well as outsiders and users (Phillipe Mora's view from the outside was great).

I go to conferences for nourishment and provocation, so more of this is important. Panel discussions and hypothetical sessions are good for making people work on their feet, not only from prepared scripts.

Have attended conferences where a full 90 minute follow up session was scheduled after keynotes so that those delegates who wanted deeper discussion could meet with speakers for free ranging conversations.

[Rachel Vavasour]

hey there
Conferences I have recently attended showed that there is a very real need for conference organisers to have strong people as session convenors. There needs to be very clear and directive discussions between the convenor and the speakers within their sessions to establish guidelines for the sessions and to emphasise speaking times. There is nothing more painful and useless than a speaker talking an hour over time.

Other than that Conferences are great ways to either pick up your game or be smug about what you do.
Rachel

[Gillian Savage]

I missed the freedom of different formats like

> exhibition reviews / comment and feedback on work done in any format
> Pecha Kucha format (20 slides with 20 secs per slide) - it's like Poetry Slam
> debates, exchanges, discussions, small groups, etc... ferment/foment
> audience prize for best 'something'
> some round tables

I appreciated the 'Memorials' session because it gave space for a different perspective to shine through.

I'd like to see a more interactive web presence associated with the conference.

[Frank Howarth]

Hi Laura (and all),
A bit of feedback from the Director perspective. I enjoyed being at the Newcastle conference, meeting new colleagues and catching up with others.
I strongly endorse the need for more discussion time. We have to harness the knowledge and views of attendees, not just speakers. We also need to use the overseas speakers better. It would have been great if Victoria Lu had been able to give a master class on how to sign up corporate supporters, and to have had her as a participant in a wider discussion on this, in an Australian context.
The conference needs to balance the needs and interests of regional versus city, and frontline versus strategists/directors. As a director, I would like to have seen more of my colleagues there, but we need things that will attract them (as AAM do at there somewhat larger gatherings). For example, some crystal ball gazing on the big issues facing us, and the big opportunities (eg web 2.0). For this, I prefer debates/discussions, not set piece speaches (unless they are guaranteed to be provocative). and lets get some "great debate" style humour and controversy back. I look forward to Melbourne next year... Frank

[Laura Miles]

Thanks - this is all *very* useful feedback.