Smithsonian 2.0?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pamela Lovis on January 29, 2009 at 1:02pm

Just caught up with this recently. If anyone can comment on who the great speakers at the conference were, I'm keen to know! I'm helping plan a digital conference here in NZ in mid November and we'll be looking to invite some inspiring keynote speakers to Wellington. Thanks, Pamela

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mia on January 30, 2009 at 9:17am

Pamela, what's your conference theme?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lynda Kelly on January 30, 2009 at 5:53am

Thanks for posting this Mia. Looks like a very interesting event. I liked the post from Bruce Wyman as it gives a nice summary. Can't help but think, however, that these ideas have been tossed around for several years now (many of them on this site!) and it's interesting the time it takes larger institutions to have these conversations.

Will be interesting to see what they now actually do with this stuff. There is one post on this with some ideas, can't seem to find much else??

In my experience at the Australian Museum to move forward I think you need:
* a committed Ditector who either "gets" this stuff or is willing to let someone get on with it
* a person at senior level who will take it on and inspire staff
* a small series of pilot projects using a range of Web 2.0 platforms to work on and evaluate
* a regular session where you talk about this stuff with staff (we have MUGS, Museum Users Group, that meets monthly to talk all things Web 2.0 - a place where people can ask the dumb questions and where we all learn together

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Reynolds on January 30, 2009 at 6:54am

Not sure I agree that the ideas have been tossed around for years - my experience is that the future arrives very unevenly, and that these discussions, though more common, are not part of the mainstream of Museum practice.

Moreover, of good deal the really innovative projects/thinking I see is still taking place in back rooms under a charter of governamce/managerial benign patronage as opposed to genuine strategic intent.

Accordingly, for me at least, one of the strengths of the Smithsonian initiative was to take the conversation to the community and invite people with first class domain expertise to contribute to the Smithsonian future.

And that, one of the key outcomes, especially given the amount of coverage it is starting to garner - is that it broadcasts the message back to the governamance layers who still struggle to hear the message from inside the organisation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mia on January 30, 2009 at 9:27am

Perhaps everyone is still digesting it? And I guess a lot of stuff has been happening already, but it hasn't been in a co-ordinated or centralised way, and it sounds like most people don't have access to social web sites or services from the institution itself, which might inhibit comments!

Dan Cohen has written about it at http://www.dancohen.org/2009/01/27/smithsonian-11-and-29/ and http://www.dancohen.org/2009/01/22/smithsonian-20/ - see also discussion in the comments.

Some videos are now online at http://smithsonian20.si.edu/multimedia.html.

The Washington Post has an article (again with lots of comments): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/25/AR2....

I do agree that most of the ideas I've heard are beautifully commonsense though not particularly ground-breaking, but a large institution putting web 2.0-style participation and access at the heart of its organisation is still all-too rare so it's also fascinating.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bruce Wyman on January 30, 2009 at 10:39am

The funny bit is that it wasn't a summary -- It was an excerpt of an email to one of the participants before the gathering.

I think there are a couple of reasons for the slow adoption:
- museums are typically building tradition and permanence - slow moving things that aren't meant to change quickly
- museums are deeply process driven - which of us hasn't lamented the three years of meetings for a project that could have taken six months?
- museums are typically risk-averse and are very protective of their voice of authority

There's no shortage of great ideas by tons of people at many levels of the organization. Mostly what you need is a place that starts to realize that society has fundamentally changed over the last 30 years and the typical means for getting knowledge and information has changed. I wouldn't want a museum to necessarily adopt the latest fad, but there does need to be more experimentation and the associated risk of failure -- and, more importantly, learning from failure.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Reynolds on January 30, 2009 at 6:38am

I have just come across this - it loks like an amazing event.
It does seem to have released some genuine energy both inside and around the Institution.
I especially liked the way they linked digital/web 2.0 et al to their founding principles.
This totally matches my own view of the emerging social/semantic web.

Would be good to see the video on You Tube so we can do the embed thing and so seed the discussion ..

best
paul

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cath on January 30, 2009 at 10:58am

My interest was piqued (in a good way! but I've not yet mined for details – I'm on holidays this week!) by references to the role of the rogue.

I also appreciated Dan Cohen's summary post on the two-step process.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angelina Russo on January 30, 2009 at 12:08pm

Thanks for the upload Mia! I agree that Dan Cohen's blog is a great summary of the issues discussed. I particularly like his idea of The Smithsonian not as a network of museums but as a platform for lifelong learning and cultural engagement. That has to go down well with the academics in the room!!
I think it's quite interesting that there weren't any speakers from the Smithsonian Channel (yes, users outside of USA will have trouble viewing it - if the page comes up at all!!) It was a partnership established around two years ago which promised original programming from Air and Space, Pop Culture, History and Mystery and Natural Wonders to your TV in HD and On Demand. I've found it really difficult to get any real sense of what happened to what seemed like a timely and great opportunity! On the surface, this initiative had the potential to draw together broad/narrowcasting and social networking from within a cultural organisation - something which others have attempted at much smaller scales.
The Washington Post article provoked some interesting responses and some useful information. You can find a register of all of the Smithsonian social media intiatives at http://siregistry.com/. There aren't that many given the size of the institution but I'm glad to see that the Educator Resource Center is there.
It will take some time to go through all of the Twitter feeds and blog responses. I look forward to hearing from some of the presenters!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nina Simon on February 6, 2009 at 5:57am

I admit, my original response to this event was perplexity. Why was a huge, public institution hosting a small closed event for private industry folks featuring incredibly expensive keynote speakers?

But upon more thought and discussion with folks, I recall that the Smithsonian is a huge and messy beast. My understanding is that this was a first step for them to really take action as a coalition of museums to "do something." Many SI museums have been doing something for awhile, but it's highly variable and dependent on the caprice of individual museum directors (as always). The head of web/new media for SI has said that this was a jumpstart for a larger project across the SI, which will involve more people from across the museum field in strategic planning and provide value outwardly as well as inside SI. Hopefully coming soon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mia on April 8, 2009 at 11:13am

I finally got around to watching Clay Shirky's talk at the event tonight, which kicked off some thoughts about the event. (Now shamelessly copying and pasting from my blog) I realised that it doesn't matter that from the outside, the outcomes weren't groundbreaking - a lot of what they were saying seemed self-evident, or least what is generally seen as The Right Thing to do in cultural heritage tech circles - the process was the important part.

It's not what they're saying, it's the fact they're having the conversation. Their institution made room, literal as well as metaphoric, for the conversation, and they (presumably) invited people from all over their organisations to participate in those conversations. It's the importance of the visibility of the project, the big name guests, the resources invested - that's the groundbreaking part.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angelina Russo on April 8, 2009 at 11:23am

I agree with you Mia. As someone who has been trying to have this conversation (in various forms) for years I find it promising that the event took place - and that so many outsiders were there to beat the drum! It will be interesting to see what happens next...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page