Assessing Risk

So much of what is happening falls outside our realm of personal experience, it can be hard to make rapid, intuitive judgements about risk. When faced with the current spate of EOs and announcements, it may feel natural to focus on the potential risks of noncompliance. However, it is useful to remember that there is actually a spectrum of risk:

• At one end are potential legal or financial actions, by the government or nongovernmental groups, that might damage an organization.
• At the other end, preemptive compliance (or as some have called it, “anticipatory obedience”) can pose a risk to reputation, to the ability of an organization to deliver on its mission, and to its duty of care for its staff and its community.

It is also important to consider the cumulative impact of individual or organizational actions on society. Decisions that keep us safe, individually and institutionally, in the short term may over the long term collectively create undesirable futures. For example, self-censorship of content might help an organization avoid unwanted attention in the current political climate, but what kind of future would widespread self-censorship help to create?

Asking Questions

How can you make wise decisions within the context of this whole spectrum of risk? One approach is to start with a framework of questions that can help tease out potential consequences of action or inaction. For example, here are some questions I’ve been hearing museum leaders ask as they consider how to respond to the expanding list of Executive Orders affecting charitable nonprofits. (Prefacing with the disclaimer that I am not an expert in either legal or legislative issues, I’m just outlining the issues as I’ve heard them discussed.)

• Does a given EO apply to our organization? Some EOs are directed at specific businesses that receive federal funding or a federally regulated. For some museums this may be a clear “yes”: for example, if their governing authority is part of the federal government, or if they receive grant funding from a federal agency. On the other hand, as we saw with the implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, “federal funding” finds its way to museums through a wide variety of channels.
• Is the guidance in a given EO clear and consistent? The wording of some of the EOs so far have been vague, and in some cases conflict internally or with subsequent communications, making it difficult to determine what organizations they apply to, or what compliance they are trying to mandate. For example, the EO Executive Order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” names accessibility (as part of DEIA) as a preference that “can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation”. However, it’s not clear whether the EO is actually targeting accessibility, or, if it is, whether that would stand up to constitutional challenge. (Disability rights lawyer Eve Hill thinks not.)
• Is it possible the EO may be challenged in court? (Many of them already have.) It may take some time for these challenges to wend their way through the system to determine whether they are eventually implemented. This being so, might it be prudent to wait and see, before taking any actions, absent an immediate threat?
• Are the consequences spelled out? The EO “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” requires each federal agency to “identify up to 9 potential civil compliance investigations of corporations, large nonprofits or associations, or foundations with assets of $500 million or more.” Some museums fall into that asset category, but what are the implications of these “potential civil compliance investigations?”

More generally (not EO specific)

• When might “taking a stand” make a difference, and when might it put an organization, and its staff and audiences, at risk? If both, how do you weigh the benefit and harm of these impacts?
• What are the values, and opinions, of our museum’s key stakeholders (board, staff, funders, donors, and community members), and how do they support or conflict with pressure from the government, funders, donors, and activists to behave in certain ways?

It also may be useful to set aside questions that might not provide useful answers, for now. For example:

• Many legal scholars are weighing in on whether any given action will hold up in court, asking “does the government have the power to do this?” Even a consensus on these issues might not provide useful guidance, as the administration may not comply with court rulings. For example, this week the administration announced it would defy a court order to prevent the funding freeze at the National Institutes of Health from going into effect.
• Many museums are taking the prudent step of conferring with attorneys about their specific circumstances, but this input may be of limited use as well. The administration has shown it is willing to take steps a lawyer might not anticipate, such as breaching the terms of contracts that have already been signed, or giving the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) unprecedented access to government IT systems and directly block payments, change code, and delete information without going through established channels.

As you create your own decision tree, incorporating these or other questions, here are some resources that might be of use:

• The National Council of Nonprofits’ continually updated summary of Executive Orders Affecting Charitable Nonprofits
• Guidance from the Federal News Network on Navigating the Trump administration’s executive orders: Key implications for employers and federal contractors.
• The Legal Landscape Around DEI Is Shifting. Your Messaging Should, Too, Harvard Business Review (accessible when you sign up for a free account).
• ‘It’s Not Over’: Steps to Rethink Fundraising After Trump’s Spending Freeze, The Chronicle of Philanthropy (paywalled, check to see if any of your colleagues have a membership.)

I’ll work on the next installment in this series. Please let me know what you would find helpful and share resources I can integrate into this work. Comment on this post, connect with me on Bluesky @elizabethmerritt.bsky.social, and join the Future of Museums Community on Museum Junction to DM me and discuss these issues with your peers.

Yours from the future,

Elizabeth Merritt
VP Strategic Foresight and Founding Director, Center for the Future of Museums
American Alliance of Museums

As of February 11, 2025. Subject to change.

Need a brief view? The Schedule at a Glance is available.

Pre-Event On Demand Webinars

Attendees may access all Museums Advocacy Day On-Demand Webinars in the Event Center with the password that was emailed to you.

Recordings available in the Event Center:

• (Available soon!) What to Expect at Museums Advocacy Day – held on February 7, 2025 at 2 p.m. ET
• Strategic Storytelling: Communicating Your Museum’s Impact
• Advocacy Deep Dive: How To Be An Effective Museum Advocate
• What’s at Stake at Home: State Advocacy Efforts
• Mock Congressional / Advocacy Video

Sunday, February 23

Sheraton Pentagon City Hotel – 900 South Orme Street, Arlington VA, 22204

All Day – On Your Own: Museum Visits – Washington, DC and beyond

2 – 5 p.m. – Check In and Materials Pick Up – Sheraton Pentagon City Hotel)
From the lobby, follow signs for Museums Advocacy Day to pick up your badge and materials at our check-in table. AAM and Advocacy Associates staff will be on hand to answer questions, including about your Tuesday meetings schedule.

5 – 6:30 p.m. – Welcome & Networking Reception – Sheraton Pentagon City Hotel; Galaxy Ballroom)Join your fellow advocates for networking and light refreshments to officially kick off Museums Advocacy Day 2025!

Monday, February 24

Sheraton Pentagon City Hotel – 900 South Orme Street, Arlington VA, 22204

7:30 – 8:30 a.m. – Check In and Networking Breakfast
If you didn’t have a chance to check in with us yesterday, stop by to pick up your badge and materials. Then grab some light nourishment and caffeine and meet some of your fellow advocates.

8:30 – 9:15 a.m. – Welcome to Museums Advocacy Day 2025!

• Marilyn Jackson, President & CEO
• Barry Szczesny, Director of Government Relations & Public Policy, American Alliance of Museums, Museums Advocacy Day Emcee

Our opening session provides a big-picture overview of the current Congressional landscape and what’s at stake for museums. You’ll also receive important information about the flow of today’s program and tips on how to maximize your Museums Advocacy Day experience.

9:15 – 9:45 a.m. – Advocacy & Policy Essentials: Understanding the Congressional Process

• Sarah Abernathy, Executive Director, Committee for Education Funding

Before we discuss the details you need to know for tomorrow’s meetings, this session sets the stage with a brief overview of what the Congressional spending process looks like and how our advocacy work fits in. You will:

• Receive an update on the Congressional budget and appropriations processes, as well as valuable insights and important context on the legislative landscape on Capitol Hill
• Gain understanding of issues critical to smart and effective advocacy

9:45 – 10:30 a.m. – Advocacy & Policy Essentials: Key Issues & Asks

• Barry Szczesny, Director of Government Relations and Public Policy, American Alliance of Museums
• Andy Finch, Director of Policy, Association of Art Museum Directors

This session is essential and required for every advocate participating in Tuesday, Feb. 25 Congressional meetings. You will:

• Hear about the key asks you’ll be making in Congressional visits
• Learn how to frame the issues and how to be prepared to respond to questions Congressional offices may have

10:30 – 11 a.m. – Networking Break

11 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. – Advocacy & Policy Essentials: Making the Case with Data

• Susie Wilkening, Principal, Wilkening Consulting
• Elizabeth Merritt, Vice President of Strategic Foresight & Founding Director of the Center for the Future of Museums, American Alliance of Museums

What makes the stories we share with decision makers even more impactful? Backing them up with data! This session reviews highlights of available data and key talking points, including from Museums as Economic Engines and Museums and Public Opinion.

11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. – Networking Lunch (Location – State Room Assignments will be linked here soon, and there will be directions to your room on-site.)

A discussion guide

View this discussion guide (link coming soon) that may help guide your lunch experience.

An updated discuss guide will be linkedThis is a dedicated time for you to begin to connect with fellow advocates from your state and region over lunch, while more formal Congressional visit planning can be reserved for the “Preparation and Practice” session later in the afternoon.

1 – 1:45 p.m. – Advocacy in Action

• Brandy Dillingham, Director of Advocacy, American Alliance of Museums

This high-energy session will get you excited and prepared to put everything you just learned into action! You will:

• Hear expert advice on being an effective advocate for museums, including telling your museum’s story and communicating its community impact
• Get tips to prepare you to be successful in visiting Congressional offices and helping you navigate Capitol Hill – including what to expect, how to approach the day, and how to follow up

1:45 – 2 p.m. – Putting It All Together: Top Takeaways

Museums Advocacy Day partner organizations recap key lessons from the day with their top advocacy tips & takeaways.

• Speakers: Representatives from Association of Science Museum Directors, American Association for State and Local History, American Public Gardens Association, Association of African American Museums, Association of Art Museum Directors, Association of Children’s Museums, Association of Science-Technology Centers, and Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

2:00 – 2:30 p.m. – America 250 (add description)

• John Dichtl, President & CEO, American Association for State and Local History

The nation’s 250th anniversary kicks off this April and will culminate on July 4, 2026. This is a once-in-a-generation chance to show how museums bring history to life, spark meaningful conversations, and strengthen civic engagement. This session will discuss using this anniversary to highlight the power of museums in shaping a shared, evidence-based understanding of our complex past.

2:30 – 2:45 p.m. – Networking Break

2:45 – 3:15 p.m. – Concurrent Public Policy Briefings

Not every policy issue affects every museum, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t vital to our cause. Be prepared to discuss these issues during your Tuesday, Feb. 25 Congressional meetings (as time allows), when following-up when the offices and staff you met with, and in your on-going year-round connecting with elected officials and their offices. Get all the details on an additional issue that may be of particular interest and import to you or your museum. Learn about the latest legislative developments and how to best make your case on these important issues. Choose one: 

Option A: National Endowment for the Humanities & National Endowment for the Arts (Commonwealth Ballroom)

• Alexandra Klein, Communications Manager, National Humanities Alliance
• Tooshar Swain, Director of Public Policy, Americans for the Arts

Option B: Historic Preservation and America 250 Q & A (Cavalier Ballroom)

• Christina Hingle, Director of Governmental and External Affairs, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
• John Garrison Marks, Director, Public History Research Lab, Senior Manager, Strategic Initiatives, American Association for State and Local History

Option C: STEM Education Funding & Priorities (Concourse Room)

• Adam Fagan, Director of Communications, Advocacy, and Engagement
• Sarah Milberg, Vice President, Government Affairs, Association of Zoos and Aquariums

3:15 – 4:30 p.m. – Putting It All Together: Preparation and Practice (Location – State Room Assignments will be linked here and there will be directions to your room on-site.)

Now that you have all of the tools and knowledge to be a successful advocate for museums, meet back at your state tables to prepare and practice for your Capitol Hill visits tomorrow. View the Meeting Coordination Instructions (link available soon) to help you during this time, in which you will:

• Compare Congressional meeting schedules and exchange contact information with fellow advocates
• Use the sample script to plan your Hill visits, including identifying speaking roles
• Practice for your visits with your fellow advocates so that you feel prepared for Tuesday’s visits
• Ask any final questions of AAM staff

Tuesday, February 25

Travel on your own or with fellow advocates to Capitol Hill for your meetings. Remember to leave plenty of time for security screening! See FAQs for travel tips and directions.

9:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m. – Meetings on Capitol Hill – U.S. Capitol Complex – For specific locations, refer to your personalized schedule which will be available (prior to the event) in the Advocacy Day App.

Put everything from yesterday’s program into action as you meet with your Congressional representatives and their teams throughout the day. The Alliance is arranging your Capitol Hill visits for you based on information you provided during registration. Your customized meeting schedule (you will be emailed access prior to the event) will be available—via electronic format—through the Congressional Meeting Web Portal (Advocacy Day App) shortly prior to and during Museums Advocacy Day. You will:

• Make key asks on behalf of the museum field
• Communicate the value of museums with data and stories
• Use your voice to share the story of your work in the museum field
• Practice and expand your professional & advocacy skills
• Capture notes to follow up with offices and AAM staff

10 a.m. – 4 p.m. – Between meetings? Need a place to take a break? Space will be available for advocates between meetings at the Capitol Visitors Center, North Congressional Meeting Room, CVC-Room 238. (Note: this space is not for luggage storage.)

5 p.m.* – 7 p.m. – Congressional Reception (Capitol Visitor Center Atrium & Auditorium)

*Allow extra time for security screening! Review items that are prohibited in the Capitol Visitors Center (CVC).

Gather with fellow advocates, members of Congress and their staffs, and partners to celebrate museums and mark the conclusion of Museums Advocacy Day 2025. 

Adam Rozan: Let’s start by introducing yourself, explaining how you got involved with museums, and your work at the Speed Museum.  

Stephen Reily: My name is Stephen Reily, and I live in Louisville, KY. I’ve been a lifelong art collector, supporter, and student of museums. Over the years, I served on a few museum boards, ultimately leading me to become the director of the Speed Art Museum—the largest and oldest art museum in Kentucky. I held that role for over four years, beginning in 2017. About two years ago, I transitioned to becoming the founding director of a new project called the Remuseum, housed within the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art.

AR: Your previous board work included the Speed.

SR: That’s right. I did serve on the Speed’s board for ten years, but when I became director in 2017 I hadn’t been on the board for a dozen years, and I wasn’t involved in the Speed’s extensive renovation, during which they closed for almost four years.

AR: If I’m correct, you were a business entrepreneur by career before your museum life.

SR: I’m a lawyer by training, but my career has largely been as an entrepreneur.

AR: From a lawyer to an entrepreneur to a board member to a museum director. Those all seem like significant shifts—each a great learning opportunity, but all so different.  

SR: When I was first asked to step into the director role, I assumed I was probably far down on their list of candidates. I wasn’t the typical museum director, but I brought a unique perspective as someone observing museums from the outside. For example, I previously served on the New Museum of Contemporary Art board in New York, which is very different from the Speed—a non-collecting, entrepreneurial museum. My background made me think of Speed almost like a startup, especially since the museum had closed for four years and reopened with mixed results. I would often refer to Speed as a “ninety-year-old startup” because we were simultaneously a historic institution and a newly revitalized entity within the community.

AR: You said on the Museum Confidential podcast that “a new building is a tactic, not a goal” and that museums and museum directors, and their boards, can get too focused on new buildings and lose sight of their community responsibilities. Could you elaborate on that, especially in the context of running the museum post-reopening?

SR: This is a common issue in museum leadership: a building can be a tactic, but it’s never the goal unto itself; how could it be? Many directors are encouraged to focus heavily on building projects, thinking that an impressive structure is the goal. However, once the building is done, it’s hard to shift focus to serving the community rather than just maintaining the structure. For instance, at the Speed, we worked with architect Kulapat Yantrasast of Why Architecture, who helped us rethink the space for a better visitor experience. However, even a beautiful building can be a burden if it requires too much upkeep, or demands staffing levels that can’t be supported, or distracts from the museum’s mission to serve the public.

AR: The last exhibition you oversaw at the Speed was Promise, Witness, Remembrance, the 2021 Breonna Taylor exhibition. Can we discuss this project?

SR: The project began in the summer of 2020 when Louisville was dealing with the trauma of Breonna Taylor’s death alongside the challenges of COVID-19. The city was in intense turmoil, filled with grief, anger, and pain. I found myself questioning the role of a museum in such a moment. What could a museum do that was truly meaningful in this context? Art became a source of guidance.

It turned out that Amy Sherald had been commissioned to paint a portrait of Breonna Taylor and had worked closely with Breonna’s mother, Tamika Palmer. One of my colleagues suggested, “What if we could borrow that painting?” We had shown Amy’s work before she became widely recognized, so we reached out, and everything slowly fell into place.

This exhibit raised difficult questions: How do we present something so raw when emotions are still fresh? But I felt strongly that we should try, trusting that art could help the community process its pain. Amy’s portrait isn’t prescriptive—it simply shows Breonna’s life, inviting viewers to reflect and feel however they need to. That’s what artists do best and what museums can offer in times of crisis.

AR: What do you think an exhibition like this one means to its community?

SR: We talked about this internally at the museum, as the exhibition symbolized our commitment to being responsive to community issues. It culminated in our efforts to create a museum that not only preserves art but also plays a role in societal dialogue. Although it was a challenging project born out of tragic circumstances, I’m proud that we were able to engage the community in such a meaningful way.

AR: And what, if anything, is the broader implication of a project like this one on the field?

SR: It proved that museums can respond meaningfully to their communities’ needs. But it also raised a broader question: Why do so many still feel detached from reality if museums have this capacity? How can we keep putting on the same kind of shows when our communities are reeling from crises like gun violence, political division, or natural disasters? I genuinely struggle with this disconnect.

Our field needs to shift towards being responsive to the issues that matter most to the people we serve. Otherwise, we risk becoming irrelevant.

AR: Let’s talk about your decision to leave Speed and your exit process since it seems extremely transparent and would be helpful to know about it from a succession planning perspective.

SR: Of course. I was fortunate at the time, as one of my board chairs had HR background from their time at Humana. I had come in as an interim, so I knew this wouldn’t be a lifelong role. I committed to giving the board at least twelve months’ notice, which allowed us to plan for the future without the surprise exits that some organizations face.

AR: If I understand correctly, you were also as transparent with staff?

SR: I was very open with both the board and my staff. We were also hiring, so it was essential to create an understanding that we were building a strong, sustainable organization that wasn’t dependent on me. I would like to think that this transparency helped create a sense of continuity, ensuring that each new hire was seen as a lasting addition to the institution, regardless of my tenure.

AR: What were some ways you all approached succession planning?

SR: I introduced an idea I called “over-hiring.” Instead of filling a role at the basic level, we hired someone with high potential who might initially seem overqualified. I wanted to create positions that would challenge these hires and help them grow, even if their next role wasn’t as a museum director. For example, they might eventually become a CEO in another organization. This approach reflects the idea that museums should act as training grounds for leaders across the country or within our region.

I wasn’t the first to try this approach—the Toledo Art Museum, for instance, has been a powerful incubator for future leaders despite being in a smaller city. They’ve produced generations of great leaders, which is inspiring. It’s a model of governance that emphasizes cultivating leadership from within, something our field needs more of.

AR: After you stepped down from the Speed, you wrote an essay entitled “The Education of a Museum Director,” which in hindsight was the perfect segue to your work at the Remuseum.

SR: That’s true. I wrote that article to talk about the various challenges in our outdated business model. Ambitions and expenses constantly outpace revenues, and we keep growing assets—like collections and buildings—that often act as liabilities. Museums have more assets than any other cultural institutions in the country, but those assets don’t necessarily support the institution’s mission. For example, it’s odd that we celebrate asset growth rather than examining whether those assets serve our purpose.

At the Speed Art Museum, I often encountered written and unwritten norms that constrained our ability to innovate. An unconventional suggestion might be replied to with a comment like, “That would be irresponsible,” even when the art or the museum wouldn’t have been harmed.

We have to acknowledge that the field can be very defensive and is resistant to change; that’s the truth. It felt ironic because art museums exist to share artists’ work, yet the spirit of artists—open-ended, ambiguous, and constantly reinventing—is often missing from museum operations.

AR: How did the Remuseum come about?

SR: Remuseum is an idea born out of Crystal Bridges, with financial support from Alice Walton, the founder of Crystal Bridges, David Booth, a MoMA board member and entrepreneur, and Rod Bigelow, Executive Director and Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer of Crystal Bridges. They had the good idea to address some of the challenges we’ve been discussing. Specifically, the ideas of community relevance, innovation, and, most critically, a sustainable business model for our institutions. When I heard about this, I thought, “This is exactly where I need to be.”

AR: You’ve mentioned that the field is resistant to change; if so, how will the Remuseum go about this?

SR: I try not to dictate what people should think, personally and in my work. In art museums, the goal should be to let the art speak for itself. Artists have done their job—they created something that invites people to engage and interpret without prescribing a specific reaction. Museums should aim to do the same. This means that we’re going to put the information out there, share it, and hopefully get those in the field interested in participating in what we’re doing to help their institutions.

AR: We were talking earlier about the actual costs for our institutions, and our visitors when they come to our institutions. Can you share what we were talking about?

SR: It’s a complicated issue, and no single answer works for every museum. However, every museum spends a lot of money on each visitor—on average, about one hundred dollars per person, according to recent data we’ve collected on 153 American museums. This includes the many expenses that go into providing a meaningful experience for each visitor, whether they pay for admission or not.

Somewhere along the line, though, we flipped a switch and started seeing visitors as revenue sources rather than as the core purpose of our mission. There’s nothing inherently wrong with generating revenue—if people want to buy food, books, or souvenirs, or if they’re inspired to support the museum’s mission, that’s great. But we must remember that the visitors are here for the experience, not as a source of income.

Think about a food bank: they use philanthropic dollars to feed people and help them achieve stability. A park system uses funds to let people enjoy nature. Museums should similarly ask, “How can we best use our resources to serve the public?”

AR: As we discussed earlier, directors today are first and foremost fundraisers, and institutions, in general, are now focusing more of their resources on revenue generation. Can you talk about the inherent conflicts that might be caused by the need to generate revenue versus the need to service our visitors?

SR: For the last forty years, nearly every major museum has developed similar revenue-generating ventures: cafes, gift shops, event spaces, etc. But when you fully account for staff time, space, and other overhead, most museums lose money on these businesses. Boards often think these ventures help fund the mission, but they can actually drain resources from it.

I’m not saying museums shouldn’t offer food or souvenirs, but we should be transparent about the actual costs. For example, if a museum’s location makes it necessary to provide an eatery because there are no nearby options, then acknowledge it as a service, not a profit center. Some museums do this thoughtfully—like the Denver Art Museum, which decided not to have a restaurant because great local options surround it. Or the Philbrook in Tulsa, which partners with local chefs to do pop-ups. These are ways to provide services without straining resources.

And, to the other part of your question, the concern is warranted, and museums should always pay attention to this, ensuring a healthy balance.

AR: Where is “purpose” in this, and what’s our role within our communities and society?

SR: I believe museums should aim to excel at a few core things rather than trying to do everything. Our mission is to serve the public by providing access to art, culture, and ideas. We’re here to enrich lives, not to run unprofitable side businesses. If we focus on our primary purpose, we’ll be more effective and better able to make a meaningful impact.

Our industry has become more complex over the years, but I think we need to simplify and zero in on our mission. In my current work, I’m exploring how we can help museums innovate and break free from legacy systems that don’t serve the public. Whether it’s environmental sustainability, workforce equity, or board diversity, there are many people in the field advocating for these changes, but progress is often slow. My goal is to create a framework that empowers museums to accelerate change and align their operations with their mission.

AR: We’ve covered a lot of ground, and these are big topics, each worthy of more conversation. To close, can you share what conversations you think are most needed and how we start making changes?

SR: We don’t discuss financial sustainability or relevance in museums enough. And, if we want to make real change in the field, and if we want our organizations to be the kinds of institutions that make a difference, then we also have to talk about governance. Because the change that’s needed can only happen if our boards are educated, involved, and working to create the necessary changes to support our institutions.

That’s the work we’ve started at Remuseum, and now we have the data to support many of these ideas. We have a lot of work to do, but it’s positive, and we’re ready to make it happen.

Jump to the text version

Sometimes, in these polarized and tumultuous times, it feels like no one can agree on anything. As we found in the Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, even the idea of museums cultivating hope for a better future was seen by some audiences through a political lens.

But maybe we are not as divided as we think. Perhaps there are some shared values we can consider to help rebuild our connections to one another and strengthen our communities.

To find out, we asked frequent museum-goers an open-ended question about hope and the future. This question appeared immediately after our direct, closed-ended questions on hope.

Actually…we had two questions to ask, and the luxury of a large sample. We programmed both questions, and half of the sample randomly received one version, and half the other.

VERSION 1:
Imagine your community in 10 years. What do you hope for your community? What do you hope for museums? And what do museums need to do to be a vital part of that community you imagine?

VERSION 2:
Imagine your family and close friends in 10 years. What do you personally hope for those family members and close friends? And what do museums need to do to be a vital part of your lives, supporting those hopes?

Who responded?

One of the things we consider when analyzing open-ended responses from a survey is who is motivated to answer the question in the first place (versus those who choose to skip it). This helps us understand if different segments of respondents felt more strongly (good or bad) than others about what we are asking.

There were two interesting patterns that emerged:

Community Version:

Liberals were nearly 50% more likely to answer the community version of the question than conservatives: 43% of liberals who saw this question wrote something in, versus 31% of conservatives. This fits in with larger patterns we have seen over the past several years, with liberals consistently more likely to indicate community-oriented answers in our museum surveys than conservatives.

Wrote in answers:

• Liberals: 43%
• Conservatives: 31%

Family/Friends Version:

Adults over the age of 60 were the most likely to write something in, 38%, and young adults (under 40) without children the least likely, only 28%. This result, admittedly, we have less insight on.

Wrote in answers:

• Over 60: 38%
• Under 40 without children: 28%

To find out what people shared, we hand-coded a demographically-balanced, but randomly selected, sample of 8,000 responses. (1) We looked at how the responses differed between the two question versions, what values people don’t quite agree on, and what values most of us seem to share.

The most common themes respondents shared centered around civility, helping communities thrive, and the value of people working together. There was quite a bit of articulation that respondents wanted museums to reduce barriers to access (particularly cost), and they also wanted their communities to value and support museums, libraries, and the cultural sector more.

“I hope we are all invested in our places and working to make our world better through where we live. It is a more practical way to make an impact on a smaller scale (not changing the whole world), but still an impactful way! Our museums are a center point for culture and our communities. I hope to continue seeing them thrive in such an important role.”

Personal Hopes for Family and Close Friends

These responses, compared to the community hopes, were much more inward looking and personal. Many of these responses focused on health, happiness, and security.

“I hope that those I love are healthy in body, mind, and soul. That they are free to live authentically and without limitations on their ideas, expressions, or dreams. That they experience equality, love, peace, and joy. That their lives are meaningful and deeply connected to themselves, others & the Earth. Museums have the potential to show us that this is possible.”

Where We Don’t Quite Agree…

There were a handful of topics that some respondents clearly cared more about than others, most of which were not surprising as we have seen similar patterns in quantitative survey results this year and in the past.

• Planet, nature, and climate. Liberals were far more likely to mention concerns about climate change, and hopes for solutions, than conservatives.
• Inclusion. Similarly, liberals were far more likely to mention DEAI than conservatives…by a factor of 5x.
• Value of community, people working together, and civics. As we saw in the 2023 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, there were political differences in responses about community and civics. Liberals were much more enthusiastic to share their ideas on these topics (and how museums can help) than conservatives. We also continue to see young adults (under 40) without children much more enthusiastic about these ideas than adults over 60…by a factor of 2.5x.

The good news is that there were a number of things that most people seem to agree on. These areas can provide us with excellent starting points for rooting our work in ways that support individuals and our communities. These include:

• The value of learning and education.
  

  “I hope that they are able to be lifelong learners who are confident, mindful, resourceful, and content. Museums can be a place to learn and a resource for building and maintaining mindfulness, resourcefulness, confidence, and contentment through accessible and relatable programs and resources.”

• A desire for less polarization and more civility.
  

  “Everyone gets along peacefully.”

• Individual happiness.
  

  “I hope that my family and friends are happy, healthy, secure, and feel loved. Museums can play a role through providing enjoyment, mental / emotional outlets, and intellectual discourse.”

• Individual health.
  

  “I hope they are happy and healthy and are learning about the world and its beauty, history, and how to keep it going and civilized.”

Because those shared values are such a vital starting point for museums engaging people effectively with many different worldviews and life experiences, we’ve included this as a line of inquiry in the 2025 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers.

Personally, however, we found coding these responses overall to be rather delightful. Most people want to envision a future where those they love, and their communities, are thriving. And many expressed hopes that we will find creative solutions to the problems we face, both globally and locally. That gives us hope as well, because if museums (and other institutions) can build on those shared values more effectively, those creative solutions will be far more possible.

“In ten years, I hope that museums will lead the way to healing using creativity, beauty, and knowledge.”

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:

• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017–2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

(1) See 2024 ASMG: Purpose and Methodology (Update) Data Story to learn more about our coding methodologies.

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums).

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories.

Beyond the administration’s buyout for federal employees, there is growing concern that further indiscriminate staff reductions could disproportionately impact agencies like IMLS. It is essential that IMLS retains the authority to manage its own staffing decisions to continue serving communities effectively.

Please reach out to your representatives today—via email or phone—and urge them to protect IMLS from harmful staffing cuts.

Thank you for your advocacy and support.

If you’d like to explore this topic, join me on Thursday, February 27, from 3-4 pm for a Future Chat with Nik. (Free, but preregistration required.)

–Elizabeth Merritt, VP Strategic Foresight and Founding Director, Center for the Future of Museums, American Alliance of Museums

There’s a quote from The Terminator (1984) that, for me, perfectly captures our complicated relationship with technology. In the movie, Kyle Reese warns Sarah Connor about the relentless nature of the Terminator in pursuing her. With a tiny adjustment, it becomes eerily applicable to how we experience technology today:

“Listen and understand. That [technology] is out there! It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop…ever, until you are dead.”

This is technology—a ceaselessly evolving and advancing tool yet utterly integral to our lives. It is how museums get things done, from crafting presentations, to managing collections, to connecting with audiences, to tracking donations. Yet, digital’s relentless march forward can feel overwhelming, especially as artificial intelligence becomes more prevalent. (And we all know what happens when SkyNet becomes self-aware…)

I’ve worked with museum technology since shortly after The Terminator hit theaters. I’ve seen the excitement, the frustration, and the persistent struggle to adapt in the time since. I recall, while working at the Getty Museum in the mid-2000s, proposing a scenario during disaster recovery planning where an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) temporarily wipes out all technology, just like in Ocean’s Eleven. A senior curator became incandescent with joy at the idea of never having to use a computer again. For the next decade, he would ask me when all this “electrickery” might finally disappear.

While we may joke about technology’s pitfalls, the truth is that it’s here to stay. Museums must make their peace with it, learning not just to manage it but to maximize its potential. The real challenge is less in keeping up with technology’s rapid pace than approaching it thoughtfully. This means seeing it as a strategic investment rather than a necessary expense, and as such, one that we must protect, care for, maintain, and replace when it fails to keep up with program and departmental goals. I too often see museums cling to outdated, inefficient tools for years, unwilling to invest in solutions that could transform productivity and engagement. My diplomatic excuse for this is that museums are very loyal to their technology.

When we think about the cost of technology, it’s tempting to focus on the price tag: the expensive software licenses, hardware upgrades, or IT staffing. But the real question is not how much technology costs—it’s what value it delivers. For example, let’s say an application costs $1,000. An expense mindset says that’s $1,000 we didn’t budget for and can’t afford. An investment mindset says that $1,000 saves one employee thirty minutes daily and pays for itself in just a few months.

This is where a matrix my colleagues and I have developed comes into play. It’s designed to help museums evaluate their technology spending as a percentage of their overall budget and understand how this spending aligns with their operational maturity and strategic goals. Remember, this matrix is a generalization. If you are spending more, that is great. Focus on the maturity description as your gauge, and whether you are getting value for your investment.

Our benchmarks are backed up by a 2021 survey by Statista focused on the digital activities of museums worldwide. Of the organizations surveyed, roughly 45 percent dedicated no more than 5 percent of their total budget to communication and digital activities, nearly a quarter allocated less than 1 percent, and 21 percent dedicated between 1 and 5 percent.

The matrix outlines eight levels of technology investment, ranging from “delinquent” to “aspirational.” At the lowest levels, organizations spend 1–2 percent of their budgets on technology. These museums typically rely on outdated systems, free or personal software, and minimal IT support—if any. While this may save money in the short term, it often results in inefficiencies, frustrated staff, and missed opportunities to engage audiences effectively.

As spending increases to 3–4 percent, we see organizations at the “baseline” level. Here, basic systems are in place, but they’re not ideal. Part-time IT support struggles to keep up, and systems often operate in silos. This stage represents a turning point: many museums at this level recognize the need for better technology but lack the resources or strategic focus to move forward.

The “healthy” level, with spending at 4–5 percent, marks a significant shift. Systems are contemporary, staff have access to the tools they need, and IT support is robust. At this stage, technology begins to play a strategic role in the organization. For example, digital tools are integrated into audience engagement efforts, and departments have the funds to invest in technology that meets their specific needs.

The “proactive” level (5–6 percent) reflects an organization that doesn’t just react to technology needs but plans for them. Budgets include experimentation funds, and a clear digital strategy is in place. The organization recognizes the value of training to maximize the tools at its disposal, and regularly refreshes digital initiatives to keep pace with changing audience expectations.

At the highest levels we typically see—“advanced” (6–7 percent) and “leadership” (7–8 percent)—technology becomes a hallmark of excellence. These are the museums that my organization cites when asked for exemplars of digital adaptation. Museums in these categories are leaders in the field, operating efficient and effective internal systems and using emerging technologies to engage audiences in innovative ways. They support staff with ongoing professional development and integrate technology into many aspects of operations. These organizations demonstrate what’s possible when we see technology not as an overhead cost but a driver of mission fulfillment.

Finally, there is the “aspirational” level—wouldn’t that be nice?—where spending is 8 percent or more. Few museums achieve this in reality, but it represents a vision of technology as a fully integrated, highly efficient force multiplier. Here, systems work in harmony, and the organization’s digital activities are recognized as exemplary.

This matrix is less of a rigid framework and more of a guide to help museums understand where they are and what it might take to mature and advance. The key takeaway is that we should view spending on technology as an investment—not just in systems and people but in the museum’s ability to fulfill its mission, engage its audience, and remain relevant in an increasingly digital world.

As with any category of spending, we must account not only for the cost of acquiring digital tools but maintaining them over time. While the relentless cybernetic assassin of The Terminator is thankfully fiction, the threats to museums’ digital assets are very real. We face several unavoidable depreciation challenges, one of which is “bit rot”—the physical corruption of data over time. (Think of it as the digital equivalent of a painting slowly fading under the sun, except instead of colors dimming, entire files or systems can disappear into oblivion.) The other is “data decay”—the depreciation of the value of our data over time; for example, an out-of-date member address or email.

So, how might museums plan for the ever-present march of technological change and mitigate these challenges? Once again, this will require a change in mindset. Museums are often more comfortable funding new initiatives than maintaining old ones. However, digital sustainability isn’t just about keeping things running; it’s about ensuring access, usability, and relevance for future generations. When making the case for long-term digital investment, we should frame it as an extension of the museum’s core mission to preserve and share knowledge. After all, bit rot and platform obsolescence are the digital world’s equivalent of losing an artifact to time.

OK, here’s my last pop-culture reference. In Minority Report, the future is predicted through data and technology. While we don’t have pre-cogs guiding us, our strategic investments in technology today can help us shape a future where museums thrive, adapt, and continue to connect emerging audiences to our programming and collections on their digital terms.

But a job description alone isn’t enough. Assessing a candidate’s skillset during the hiring process is just as critical. Museums need professionals with a wide range of expertise—from curation and collections management to education, visitor engagement, and security. Beyond technical qualifications, traits like adaptability, communication, problem-solving, and cultural competency are crucial in a candidate’s success.

By combining well-crafted position descriptions with thorough skill evaluations, museums can build dynamic teams that fulfill job functions and drive the institution’s mission.

Since every museum is unique, these template descriptions should serve as a foundation for customizing to reflect your organization’s specific needs, culture, and goals. These descriptions and skill sets were developed with the assistance of various experts in the museum field. Particular thanks go to Leah Melber, Ph.D., Chris Morehead, Danyelle Rickard, Grace Stewart, and Joseph O’Neill. 

Collections Manager

Curator

Executive Director

Museum Educator

Museum Preparator

Operations Manager

Security Guard

Store Manager

Visitor Services Manager

Volunteer Manager

Jump to the text version

“I was impressed by this survey lifting cultivating hope as a significant role of museums — even while exhibits prominently evoke situations of lament. BRAVO!!!”

“It is not a museum’s job to force emotional responses on visitors. Do not manipulate us.”

“I don’t really see this as a museum’s purpose, but I do feel hopeless often.”

For many of us who work in the museum field, the idea of “hope” feels like a positive outcome of a museum visit, and thus worthy of cultivation.

Fortunately, most museum-goers agree! As we saw in our introductory Data Story on hope, four out of five agreed that the cultivation of hope was important.

But how important?

When we analyzed results more fully, we found that while 40% of frequent museum-goers are very enthusiastic about the cultivation of hope in museums, a similar number are actually more ambivalent. Additionally, a small but vocal minority of museum-goers disagreed with the idea entirely.

• Resistant
  • Frequent Museum-Goers: 18 percent
  • U.S. Adults: 13 percent
• Ambivalent
  • Frequent Museum-Goers: 43 percent
  • U.S. Adults: 42 percent
• Enthusiastic
  • Frequent Museum-Goers: 40 percent
  • U.S. Adults: 45 percent

In this Data Story, we will explore more about these differing attitudes and delve into open-ended responses to understand the “why“ behind the results.

The Enthusiastic

“Since the pandemic and political chaos that floods the TV and social media, we have a society filled with anxiety. A place of solitude and hope for the future on any subject is welcomed.”

“Very important, for the future generations. I personally feel like I don’t have much fuel left.”

If there was a common theme among enthusiastic respondents, it was that hope is needed more than ever in these tumultuous times.

Repeatedly, they mentioned mental health, emotional well-being, and that a feeling of hope was necessary for motivating people to work towards positive solutions.

For the most part, these enthusiastic respondents fall into the more “open” category of respondents we have been tracking: they are significantly more likely to be curious, empathetic individuals who want to be challenged, support climate action, and have inclusive attitudes. Additionally, people of color were much more likely to be enthusiastic about hope in museums: half fell in this segment versus 38% of white people.

There was a cautionary note from some enthusiastic respondents, however: warnings against false hope. They wanted the cultivation of hope to be realistic and backed up with proactive changes…not a “sentimental” hope that assumes others will take responsibility for solutions.

The Ambivalent (and sometimes perplexed)

“To me, it’s an odd word choice. Hope is always important, I guess, but it’s not why I go to museums. I go to be inspired and awed.”

“I haven’t thought about it too much, but in the context of the times, I think this is important to begin considering.”

Respondents in this segment were generally open to the idea of museums cultivating hope, but for many, the idea was a surprise.

It simply had not occurred to them and they had to take a moment to consider it. After that consideration, they indicated either a limited degree of support or outright ambivalence.

Generally, for most in this segment, hope is a perfectly fine outcome of a museum experience. But it isn’t the primary goal and they are also perfectly fine if it doesn’t happen.

For some, however, it was simply perplexing. They used words like “odd,” “vague,” or “strange.” A few also said that they didn’t feel this was the job or responsibility of museums…but not in a way that indicated they opposed the idea.

“I do not put this burden on the museum.”

The Resistant

“I don’t want the museum to manipulate my emotions in any way.”

“YOU’RE A MUSEUM! It’s not your job. NO MORE WOKE!”

For those who were resistant to the idea of museums cultivating hope, that resistance was often framed through lenses of politics and manipulation.

That is, they felt “hope” was coded language for “woke” ideologies (with “woke” being used as a pejorative term) or that museums were trying to tell them how to feel.

These knee-jerk, emotional responses sometimes yielded strong language. Additionally, these “resistant” respondents were over 2x more likely than “ambivalent” respondents, and 4.5x more likely than “enthusiastic” respondents, to hold anti-inclusive attitudes. They were also significantly less likely to hold community-oriented attitudes or think that museums should connect people to humanity.

This indicates that more “resistant” respondents are lumping together a collection of values, including hope, that they consider inappropriate for museums…likely because they fear that the hopes museums might cultivate in visitors would be hopes that these “resistant” individuals do not share. This suggests there is a fundamental trust issue at the heart of their resistance.

Overall, however, most museum-goers do want to emerge from museum experience with a feeling of hope for the future. And given their overall openness to imaginative experiences as well, museums can be fantastic places to help people imagine creative solutions and feel empowered to make a difference in their communities.

Additionally, follow-up questions in the 2024 Annual Survey indicate that, regardless of how individuals feel about hope in museum settings, there are common values that most of us share when we think about the future. We’ll explore those shared values in our final Data Story on hope.

“I am choosing ‘other’ [for this question] because I think it is even MORE important than ‘very important.’ The world is a mess. I believe art and all museums can give us [hope] and will save us all.”

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:
• 2024 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 90,178; 202 museums participating
• 2024 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,154
• 2017 – 2023 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

*Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums).

More Data Stories can be found at wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories.

Step 1: Start from a Stable Base

I want to start by emphasizing the need to care for yourself and those around you. Fostering mental, emotional, and physical health not only minimizes harm, but sets the stage for effective response. If you, or members of your family, participate in sports, you may be familiar with the precept “start from a stable base”—a strong and balanced core. It’s not possible to respond effectively to challenges when you are off balance, or, as the idiom goes, “caught on the back foot.” While self-care may seem out of reach right now, it may be a useful practice to deploy when circumstances permit. With that in mind, here are some resources you might draw upon:

• From TrendsWatch, Take Care: Building resilience and sustainable practice addresses the history and importance of the self-care movement, its implications for museum workers, and steps museums can take to care for their staff and community.
• Several resources from the estimable Seema Rao of Brilliant Idea Studio:
  • An essay on how to set aside time and space for a self-care plan in the workplace.
  • Objective Lessons: Self-Care for Museum Workers, 196 pp., digital edition available from Amazon.
  • An episode of the MuseoPunks podcast, in which host Jeff Inscho and Suse Anderson interview Seema and Beck Tench to create an Ode to Self-Care.
  • A webinar in which Seema joined me to discuss how museum workers can employ self-care to sustain physical and mental health, and how museums can foster self-care in the workplace and create a less stressful work environment.
• The Hidden Brain podcast recently aired an episode titled Wellness 2.0: When it’s all too much, in which researcher Sarah Jaquette Ray talks about how we can reclaim our sense of efficacy and purpose in the face of big, systemic problems.

Step 2: Identify Credible, Manageable Sources of Information

The sheer volume of news and commentary about the impact of current events is, frankly, counterproductive. It can be more useful, and healthier, to identify a few credible, useful sources of information to monitor on a regular basis. Here are a few sources that I am using to stay informed:

• The National Council of Nonprofits has created a summary, updated daily, of Executive Orders Affecting Charitable Nonprofits, including a list of related actions and capsule analysis of nonprofit impact.
• Patrick Reis, senior politics and policy editor at Vox, has created The Logoff newsletter to provide a daily synopsis of political news that allows you to “log off and get back to the rest of your life.” Each entry summarizes what’s going on in the White House, provides some historical perspective, comments on the impact, and offers some thoughts on what may come next.
• The weekly NPR Politics Newsletter is also a good source of “political news without the noise.”

Step 3: Organize Your Mental Inbox

I’ve written in the past about the importance of establishing healthy filters for consuming content. That is more important than ever, given the pace of change under the new administration. How can you ensure you stay informed of things you need to know without becoming overwhelmed? Consider creating categories to organize the information pouring into your feeds. As you sort through the headlines, identify whether a piece of news:

• Has immediate impact, for your organization, your family, yourself. For example, might your museum need to remove material from its website, reassign staff, or cancel government-funded events or contracts? This is your priority basket, for your attention even if all else gets filtered out.
• May potentially have impact, depending on how things play out. Some of the recent executive directives can be challenged in court, require legislative approval, or must go through additional processes before they can take effect. To help identify what you might flag as having potential impact, it may help to review this explanation from National Public Radio on the difference between presidential orders, memorandums, and proclamations.
• Is of concern, but is not something you have the responsibility, or even the ability, to cope with yourself. To paraphrase something Dr. Ray says in the Hidden Brain interview (above), the mental suffering we inflict on ourselves does not, itself, make the world a better place.
• Is noise you can, and should, ignore. Some of the issues raised in press and commentary are speculative at this moment—worrying about what might happen but hasn’t happened yet. Learn to filter: is it something you could prepare for? Does it increase stress without providing useful, actionable information? Scrolling social media feeds, be alert to memes, AI generated fakes, and misinformation that may just make things worse. (Though if a little bit of meme humor makes you feel better, then consume as needed.)

As always, I will do the best I can to search, filter, analyze, summarize and share news that can help you respond to current events and plan for the immediate future.

Warmest regards,

Elizabeth Merritt
VP Strategic Foresight and Founding Director, Center for the Future of Museums
American Alliance of Museums