Museum on the Move: An interview with Katrin Vohland and Bernhard Misof

An interview with Katrin Vohland, Director General of the Natural History Museum Vienna (NHM), and Bernhard Misof, Director General of LIB:

LIB: What is changing at the Natural History Museum as an institution?

Dr Katrin Vohland: The museum of the future has many tasks that we have had for a long time and will retain: We preserve and open up various collections and conduct research using modern technology and up-to-date methods. We are the major interface to the public when it comes to education. The museum of the future has just been discussed very intensively by the International Council of Museums (ICOM). The new definition places much greater emphasis on functions such as empowerment and self-empowerment, as well as global sustainability goals, the involvement of society through citizen science, participation and the negotiation of nature.

Prof Dr Bernhard Misof: What I find exciting about the museums of the future is that they have to orientate themselves in the social transformation process that we are currently observing and at the same time offer orientation. When it comes to collection-related research, conservation and monitoring research brings a completely new methodology with a new relevance to our museums. In addition to scientists, citizen science can play an extremely important role here, for example with the data on birds in Europe. Our structures and networks for the long-term management of data can be utilised by associations and societies. I see museums as anchor points for people who want to work here.

K. Vohland: I believe that natural history museums need to integrate the humanities and social science aspects and methods from the social sciences more closely - because they have a transformative function and therefore also conduct transdisciplinary research. They have great access to different social groups and their values.

B. Misof: We have to take paths here that we didn't take in the past. We have to integrate the new in such a way that we don't lose the place of expertise that we stand for as museums. In the past, we exhibited plants and animals and perhaps also rocks. Now we have the polarity between nature and man as a central moment in the building - which shouldn't really be a polarity at all. This requires us to rethink our entire way of thinking about how a museum works. We also need to integrate our employees into this process.

K. Vohland: Exactly, that calls for a different kind of leadership. We need to become much more participative - even within our own organisation. Ultimately, we need to look at how we value work beyond research. Valuing science communication and bringing it to the political level - we still have some way to go.

LIB: What does this mean for the management and organisational structure?

B. Misof : If a natural history museum also takes social science and humanities aspects into account, we will break up the compartmentalisation of specialist disciplines. How do you get to grips with this organisationally? These are management issues that are completely new to a museum.

K. Vohland: That's true. On the one hand, you need specialist expertise and, on the other, people who think beyond their own horizons. For me, this means that you can't just manage the museum. I see my role as leadership and as empowering employees. We endeavour to offer formats in which we develop joint strategies and ask ourselves: what impact do we want to have as a museum?

B. Misof: Do you think visitors realise what we are doing, how we are changing?

K. Vohland : In the minds of many visitors, we are associated with a dusty image. And when we look at our self-perception and the discourse with other museums, we really are somewhere completely different: we have an innovation hub, we cooperate with industries, we invite politicians. We discuss conflicts of interest in the area of nature utilisation, we negotiate how nature can be protected. We have very modern methods here at the centre. Our scientists communicate their research to the outside world using professionally organised science communication formats. On our Deck 50 experimental platform, for example, this is fully staged. We offer appropriate training for this. The public doesn't automatically realise all this.

B. Misof: We have exactly the same problem. Visitors are totally amazed when we tell them about everything we do internally in the area of collections. How we deal with the topics in theory, where we currently stand. But we are fighting against an image that we have not yet been able to change successfully.

K. Vohland: I think the image will change when the museum has an impact on your own life, when you really have educational successes, when you are suddenly inspired, when you understand something, when you talk to your colleagues and friends about things you have learnt here in the museum. Maybe that just takes a bit of time.

B. Misof: I've recently been looking more closely at art because I started from the premise that various forms of artistic expression are often the quickest and most radical way to recognise social transformation processes and I ended up with graffiti. These graffiti create a reflection zone for people outside the museums. That's why we want to start working with graffiti and try out whether it's a language that can also benefit a museum.

K. Vohland: That's another thing we're thinking about. How do we get out of the bubble? We want to retain the educated middle classes, who are the pillars of society. How do we get to the groups that are far away? We are trying to understand the extent to which museums can also support language development and self-efficacy. What role does the museum play as a place? What role do the objects play? What role does the museum play in the development of young people?

LIB: How does the museum cater for different interests?

B. Misof: A museum must create opportunities for people to interact, to express themselves, to move towards a possible consensus or at least towards dissent in order to process it.

K. Vohland: We offer a forum for negotiating interests. Here you can recognise the dissent, formulate the conflicts of interest and see what lies behind them. We are at the interface between scientific knowledge, expertise and the negotiation of interests. We set topics and proactively bring scientific expertise to society. But we don't engage in party politics, we don't allow ourselves to be instrumentalised.

B. Misof: Yes, we provide a place where it is possible to negotiate values.

LIB: How political can or must museums be?

K. Vohland: We recognise the importance of animals, plants and fungi for the entire ecosystem, for the well-being of people. And in this respect, we have to be political enough to say: it is an issue if we lose biodiversity now. It is a problem for humanity and we also know the drivers. What we can do is to highlight these issues and also the consequences. I think it's not just about values, it's very often about land and land use. What do we actually do with the land? Do we grow animal feed there or put a shopping centre on it? Is it a nature reserve? You need the land. And that is the main conflict for me. We are political, even if we claim to be apolitical. The very fact that we deal with natural resources, with minerals, with the evolution of people, makes us political.

B. Misof: Yes, I see it exactly the same way. In our last visitor structure analysis, we asked the question: Do you also expect us to take a political stance? And a surprisingly large majority of our visitors actually expect statements from the museum that are socio-politically relevant. What do the climate and biodiversity crisis mean? Who are the drivers of this biodiversity crisis? Another socio-political statement is that we need to change our consumer behaviour. That was astonishing for us. In the past, we have always said that science, including museums, must be politically neutral. When we think about the topics we cover, this is not possible at all. And that means that we have to take a clear stance here and are expected to do so.

K. Vohland: The question is: what is the responsibility of science, what is the responsibility of individuals? What is the responsibility of politics, which is fundamentally responsible for the framework conditions?

LIB: What impressions should visitors go home with?

K. Vohland: I am pleased when people who visit our museum take something away with them about nature, about the processes of evolution. It is important that it is something positive, that they feel strengthened in what they think and also want to do for nature and take this inspiration home with them.

B. Misof: I can only quote from our guest book in Bonn, where the majority of entries now read: "We would like to leave this house with solutions that we can implement in our private garden. So with something positive. And I think that's really what it's all about.